or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Congratulations to the Dems
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Congratulations to the Dems - Page 4

post #121 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman

Again, anytime someone makes this claim I have to call bullshit. We didn't have a Constitutional amendment created to limit the presidency to two terms because of Bush. We had it because of FDR who ignored the tradition established by George Washington.

Before the Republicans came to power, the Democrats held the house for over 40 years and THAT is a statistical outlier as well. Finally FDR is, as afar as I know.. the only president to actually threaten the Supreme Court into doing his bidding.

We can't let Bush-hate alter history.

Nick

It was probably a good thing FDR was president during those times. He was an effective president and retrospectively, we can say he did a good job at guiding the US through the great depression and war.
post #122 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman

Again, anytime someone makes this claim I have to call bullshit. We didn't have a Constitutional amendment created to limit the presidency to two terms because of Bush. We had it because of FDR who ignored the tradition established by George Washington.

Before the Republicans came to power, the Democrats held the house for over 40 years and THAT is a statistical outlier as well. Finally FDR is, as afar as I know.. the only president to actually threaten the Supreme Court into doing his bidding.

We can't let Bush-hate alter history.

Nick

It's not about Bush. My claim was that the Congress was what broken, not the presidency. Your FDR example makes my case: FDR was stopped from his court-packing plan by Congress, which was controlled by his own party. They were willing to stop him when he wanted to do insane stuff, which is what is supposed to happen. Throughout his presidency, FDR had battles with members of Congress from his own party.

I stand by my claim that our system is broken when it requires different parties to control the different branches of government. There are supposed to be natural checks and balances. We don't have a parliamentary system, but that's how the Republicans ran things from 2000-2005.
post #123 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman

Again, anytime someone makes this claim I have to call bullshit. We didn't have a Constitutional amendment created to limit the presidency to two terms because of Bush. We had it because of FDR who ignored the tradition established by George Washington.

Before the Republicans came to power, the Democrats held the house for over 40 years and THAT is a statistical outlier as well. Finally FDR is, as afar as I know.. the only president to actually threaten the Supreme Court into doing his bidding.

We can't let Bush-hate alter history.

Nick

Ok Nixon is the only one to order an illegal break in!

It was an attempt at manipulating a presidental election no less!

Or did you forget that?

Now does that come under the standard idea of how government should operate?

There's plenty to talk about on the republican side.

It's almost like republican presidents think they're above the law or something. That's funny because just the opposite is true. They should be more accountable than the average person because of the position and the power they have.


There's plenty of reasons to hate Bush.

And I don't think future history is going to kind ol' dubbya all on it's own.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #124 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

Not true! First you have to understand inflation in context with history to understand why it is necessary and sometimes good.

On this I am afraid that you are completely wrong and do not know what you are talking about. Sorry.
post #125 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch

Buy uber expensive foreign sports cars? imported designer clothes? Travel? buy expensive real estate?

Exactly. And what happens then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch

If you think a lot of that money comes back to the economy for the benefit of the population as a whole, I have an intergalactic space shuttle ticket for sale for you. First class.

Ummm...obviously you don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch

The very rich or savvy investors never use their own money for business or real estate development.

Oh do tell. What do they invest in?

( this should be good )
post #126 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

On this I am afraid that you are completely wrong and do not know what you are talking about. Sorry.

Two Words: Weimar Republic
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #127 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

On this I am afraid that you are completely wrong and do not know what you are talking about. Sorry.

Did you even read my post? Instead of just disagreeing, you could say WHAT you disagree with and why. I did say when and where inflation is bad, but I also said when and where it is not bad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Exactly. And what happens then?



Ummm...obviously you don't know.



Oh do tell. What do they invest in?

( this should be good )

He said, "their OWN money"

The key thing is their own. He was making the point that most rich people user their OWN money to make a lot of private investments which don't do much to stimulate the economy.

The money the use to invest which stimulates the economy is the money in corporations and shareholders. Corporations are legally individuals and shareholders are also individuals, and when it comes down to it, it is just wealthy using other peoples money to make more money for themselves (and the shareholders and corporation so they can continue making money).


I'm just curious what your background is, so maybe I can understand where your thoughts are coming from...

How old are you? (approx is ok)
Do you consider yourself to be a democrat/republican/independent?
Did you vote for Bush is 2000 and/or 2004?
What do you do for a living?
What secondary education do you have and where did you get your degree(s) from?
post #128 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

Did you even read my post? Instead of just disagreeing, you could say WHAT you disagree with and why. I did say when and where inflation is bad, but I also said when and where it is not bad.

Umm...OK. Inflation is never good. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

He said, "their OWN money"

I understand perfectly what he said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

The key thing is their own. He was making the point that most rich people make a lot of private investments which don't do much to stimulate the economy.

Hmmm. What do they invest in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

The money the use to invest which stimulates the economy is the money in corporations and shareholders.

Yes, I am aware of this. Where does this capital come from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

Corporations are legally individuals and shareholders are also individuals, and when it comes down to it, it is just wealthy using other peoples money to make more money for themselves (and the shareholders and corporation so they can continue making money).

Now you are talking in circles. Don't get dizzy.
post #129 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

How old are you? (approx is ok)
Do you consider yourself to be a democrat/republican/independent?
Did you vote for Bush is 2000 and/or 2004?
What do you do for a living?
What secondary education do you have and where did you get your degree(s) from?

Ah. Fishing for ad hominem material. No thanks. None of those facts (my age, voting record, profession, educational level) would be relevant to the arguments, facts or issues. I could be friggin' Bozo the Clown. It doesn't matter. Tackle the arguments...not the person making them.

Inflation does not create or generate wealth at all. This is the problem. Trade is what generates growth and wealth...well actually productivity first, then trade. Inflation simply spreads the value of wealth over a larger set of units (dollars, yen, whatever) making each of them worth less. This is a pretty simple concept actually. That inflation helps in some way is an illusion. That it appears to be "good" is merely because in present times (really only the past 25 years) in the U.S. the government has managed to prevent it from getting out of control. But it hasn't really added or created anything of value whatsoever.

Some fun quotes that put a fine point on this:

“The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.” -- Ernest Hemingway

“Inflation is taxation without legislation” -- Milton Friedman

“If Americans ever allow banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless” -- Thomas Jefferson

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” -- John Maynard Keynes

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” -- Vladimir Lenin
post #130 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Umm...OK. Inflation is never good. Period.

Only the Sith deals in absolutes. But seriously, isn't atleast a tiny amount of inflation unavoidable or preferable? I don't remember much of econ 101, but teacher said we'd want a little bit.
post #131 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak

But seriously, isn't atleast a tiny amount of inflation unavoidable or preferable?

In my view (and that of many economists) it is neither unavoidable not preferable. It does nothing of value. It creates nothing. It only devalues. Having a larger quanity of money units doesn't really accomplish anything. If we print 10 times as much money without backing it with something of real value (this is inflation) we are not 10 times wealthier...in fact some people will have been robbed...some wealth will have been transferred (most likely poor to wealthy)...but the aggregate wealth has not increased (which many think has happened).

P.S. This is exactly why when people talk about and report on economic and financial numbers of various kinds from different time periods they...the educated and informed ones...state them in "real" dollars (that is dollars where inflation is taken out). They do this because they know that inflation makes things look like they are bigger or better than they really are.
post #132 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Two Words: Weimar Republic

What about it? I'm assuming you're referring to 1923/24. What was good about that period?
post #133 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Ah. Fishing for ad hominem material. No thanks. None of those facts (my age, voting record, profession, educational level) would be relevant to the arguments, facts or issues. I could be friggin' Bozo the Clown. It doesn't matter. Tackle the arguments...not the person making them.

Inflation does not create or generate wealth at all. This is the problem. Trade is what generates growth and wealth...well actually productivity first, then trade. Inflation simply spreads the value of wealth over a larger set of units (dollars, yen, whatever) making each of them worth less. This is a pretty simple concept actually. That inflation helps in some way is an illusion. That it appears to be "good" is merely because in present times (really only the past 25 years) in the U.S. the government has managed to prevent it from getting out of control. But it hasn't really added or created anything of value whatsoever.

Some fun quotes that put a fine point on this:

“The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.” -- Ernest Hemingway

“Inflation is taxation without legislation” -- Milton Friedman

“If Americans ever allow banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless” -- Thomas Jefferson

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” -- John Maynard Keynes

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” -- Vladimir Lenin

No, I was not fishing for "ad hominem" materials. This has nothing to do with stereotypes or emotions; thats what NOT knowing such quote unquote "ad hominem" material is for. The real reason I asked (which I alluded at in my original post), is I want to know the authority for which you speak (that would be in reference to career), outlook on life (age and education), and general political beliefs. I wasn't going to use that against you in my reasoning, I was just curious.

YOU DO NOT EVEN READ THE REASONING FOR WHAT I AM SAYING. In all of your quotes of my posts, you quote the vague thesis and my guess is, thats as far as you usually get. And even if you are reading the entire post, why don't you respond with SPECIFIC things that I say that you can rebut. All you say is, "No, you are wrong. Period." That's real mature. Most of your arguments are ad logicam, and do not have real proof or evidence.

Yes, bad most of the time bad, but it is not inherently bad:

In mainstream economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices, as measured against some baseline of purchasing power.

When the purchasing power increase, inflation is not bad as long as it increases at the same rate for which the economy is growing. Without inflation, the economy would not grow as fast (because an economy should be just as much a buyers market as it is a sellers market).

Demand Pull Inflation, Cost Pull Inflation, and Built-In Inflation are generally bad, and those are the most common types of inflation, but it is stupid to say that ALL inflation is bad categorically. Most see "inflation" as bad, but don't see an expanding stable economy as a type of inflation, which it is. Ever notice how when there is more spendable money floating around, prices go up to take advantages of this? And since more money is being spent, the economy is usually further stimulated.
post #134 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

It's not about Bush. My claim was that the Congress was what broken, not the presidency. Your FDR example makes my case: FDR was stopped from his court-packing plan by Congress, which was controlled by his own party. They were willing to stop him when he wanted to do insane stuff, which is what is supposed to happen. Throughout his presidency, FDR had battles with members of Congress from his own party.

You can claim what you desire. FDR had his own attorney general draw up the bill and send it off to Congress. The court began ruling differently in overturning itself while it was under discussion. It clearly was being threatened by the executive branch.

Quote:
They were willing to stop him when he wanted to do insane stuff, which is what is supposed to happen. Throughout his presidency, FDR had battles with members of Congress from his own party.

The legislature passed all aspects of FDR's New Deal. What are you talking about? For that time it certainly was "insane stuff." FDR had a fight on his hands when he attempted to alter an actual branch of government.

You are welcome to show in any fashion how Bush has altered the other two branches of government. You can show how he threatened the courts, or demanded to change the number of representatives, etc. in the House and Senate.

Quote:
I stand by my claim that our system is broken when it requires different parties to control the different branches of government. There are supposed to be natural checks and balances. We don't have a parliamentary system, but that's how the Republicans ran things from 2000-2005.

You can stand anywhere you want. Until I see Bush decided that the Senate should have three members from all the red states, or that the House of Representatives should have a thousand members, etc. your claims are hollow. It is especially hollow considering the last election. All the party system did was insure some members of Congress were tossed as bathwater instead of baby.

Nick

"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 #135 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

No, I was not fishing for "ad hominem" materials. This has nothing to do with stereotypes or emotions; thats what NOT knowing such quote unquote "ad hominem" material is for. The real reason I asked (which I alluded at in my original post), is I want to know the authority for which you speak (that would be in reference to career), outlook on life (age and education), and general political beliefs. I wasn't going to use that against you in my reasoning, I was just curious.

OK

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

YOU DO NOT EVEN READ THE REASONING FOR WHAT I AM SAYING.

Yes I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

In all of your quotes of my posts, you quote the vague thesis and my guess is, thats as far as you usually get.

You guess wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

And even if you are reading the entire post, why don't you respond with SPECIFIC things that I say that you can rebut. All you say is, "No, you are wrong. Period."

But your post didn't provide anything proving that "inflation is good". There is nothing substantive to rebuke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

Yes, bad most of the time bad, but it is not inherently bad:

We disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

In mainstream economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices, as measured against some baseline of purchasing power.

That is not what inflation is. That is a symptom of inflation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

When the purchasing power increase, inflation is not bad as long as it increases at the same rate for which the economy is growing.

This is completely wrong. Inflation is not a rise in purchasing power it creates a fall in purchasing power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

Without inflation, the economy would not grow as fast (because an economy should be just as much a buyers market as it is a sellers market).

Completely wrong. Inflation does not increase the number of buyers or sellers in the market. You really don't understand how this works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

but it is stupid to say that ALL inflation is bad categorically.

Inflation is an increase in the money supply plain and simple. It causes prices to rise and purchasing power to fall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

Ever notice how when there is more spendable money floating around, prices go up to take advantages of this?

Yes and more dollars are required to buy things, thus purchasing power has declined.
post #136 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

What about it? I'm assuming you're referring to 1923/24. What was good about that period?

It killed Germany's debt by allowing their currency to hyperinflate; thus inflation can be used for good (even if the citizens suffered a bit during that time, Germany's depression was the shortest of all Western Nations due to this debt riddance)...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #137 of 196
Cris Chilla:

We were thinking about inflations under different terms. Your deffinition of inflation only includes that for which is defined under Kenesian economics.

When the purchasing power gets too great (and yes, this can happen), inflation is needed to let the sellars component of the economy to keep up, which may cause a very temporary resession... but when purchasing power increases again, the economy will usually be larger than before. Some people refer to this as wave economics (because of the way the waves come in when the tide is rising).
post #138 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

Cris Chilla:

Ummm...Chris Cuilla.


Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

We were thinking about inflations under different terms.

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

Your deffinition of inflation only includes that for which is defined under Kenesian economics.

Well, let's take a look...

From the same page where you got this: "In mainstream economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices, as measured against some baseline of purchasing power." the very next sentence says: "The prevailing view in mainstream economics is that inflation is caused by the interaction of the supply of money with output and interest rates."

But "Keynesian economic theory proposes that money is transparent to real forces in the economy, and that visible inflation is the result of pressures in the economy expressing themselves in prices." (which appears to be what you are saying).

Also..."Keynesian economics by contrast typically emphasize the role of aggregate demand in the economy rather than the money supply in determining inflation." Keynesians basically say that inflation "just happens" and is basically unrelated to the supply of money. But what they are really talking about is the standard interplay of supply and demand. Demand does increase prices...of some goods (usually at the expense of the price of other goods whose demand goes down).

But...onto other definitions...

Dictionary.com: "a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency"

American Heritage Dictionary: "A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services."

Webster: "An increase in the amount of currency in circulation, resulting in a relatively sharp and sudden fall in its value and rise in prices: it may be caused by an increase in the volume of paper money issued or of gold mined, or a relative increase in expenditures as when the supply of goods fails to meet the demand."

The fundamental thing to understand here is that money is a "good" or a "commodity" too and that it is affected by the principles of supply and demand...which then interacts with the demand for good. Increasing the supply of money (usually printing more fiat money) will reduce its "price" (its value) relative to other goods and services and require more of it to obtain those other goods and services.

As to the argument that even a "little bit o' inflation" isn't bad, let's look at this from the perspective of someone making, let's say $20,000 per year. This person likely has much less "wiggle room" in their budget. Let's imagine that over a 3-year period they don't get a raise at all...but the rate of inflation (as reflected in the general increase of the prices of goods and services) is about 3% (the approximate average for the last 25 years...and a "low" level). This person, after three years, is effectively now making only about $18,200 or nearly $150/month less (that number actually looks worse when you realize it is after tax money). How harmless is inflation to that person? OK...what if they do get a small/modest raise? Say about 3% a year. In that case they have been working just as hard to stand still. If they are lucky enough to actually get a raise higher than the rate of inflation (a rarity)...say 5%...then they might be getting ahead...but not as much as you'd think...because that raise is pre-tax $. So it shouldn't be hard to see that even a small level of inflation is harmful...it is like a "hidden tax"...which likely hits lower income people harder than higher income people.
post #139 of 196
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #140 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman

You can claim what you desire. FDR had his own attorney general draw up the bill and send it off to Congress. The court began ruling differently in overturning itself while it was under discussion. It clearly was being threatened by the executive branch.

The legislature passed all aspects of FDR's New Deal. What are you talking about? For that time it certainly was "insane stuff." FDR had a fight on his hands when he attempted to alter an actual branch of government.

You are welcome to show in any fashion how Bush has altered the other two branches of government. You can show how he threatened the courts, or demanded to change the number of representatives, etc. in the House and Senate.

You can stand anywhere you want. Until I see Bush decided that the Senate should have three members from all the red states, or that the House of Representatives should have a thousand members, etc. your claims are hollow. It is especially hollow considering the last election. All the party system did was insure some members of Congress were tossed as bathwater instead of baby.

Nick

Well again I wasn't talking about Bush I was talking about the independence of Congress. But I'll leave it at that; since you were so gracious about our bet, I don't want to smack you down too hard.
post #141 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

Well again I wasn't talking about Bush I was talking about the independence of Congress. But I'll leave it at that; since you were so gracious about our bet, I don't want to smack you down too hard.

Perhaps this will give you a little something to think about..Presidents and Control of Congress.

I really don't see much there to suggest your claims that the systems of checks and balances has been broken within the last six years. Historically the strongest presidents had coattails and brought their own parties into power and control of Congress. These changes occurred often. It is only the 40 year Democratic reign and the four terms of FDR that are the exceptions to the rule. If Bush were just given whatever he wanted by Congress, where is Supreme Court Justice Harriet Myers?

Isn't part of the disbelief regarding the loss by Lincoln Chafee the fact that he was a very independent Republican? When Jeffords didn't like the direction of Congress, didn't he merely switch parties and control? Didn't Senator "Maverick" McCain still engineer the "gang of 14" agreement to essentually grab some control away from the Majority leader? Didn't Lott still have to step down as majority leader when his statements caused a stir?

I guess I don't see your points even if related to Congress. People still defect and change parties. People still have little power grabs of their own. People still goof and lose or leverage and gain power regardless of party. In short, politics is still politics.

Nick

"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 #142 of 196
post #143 of 196
Your Harriet Myers comment must be a joke.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #144 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman

If Bush were just given whatever he wanted by Congress, where is Supreme Court Justice Harriet Myers?

If memory serves, when Bush nominated Meiers, everyone in America who was not named "George W. Bush" was upset, not just congress.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #145 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman

Perhaps this will give you a little something to think about..Presidents and Control of Congress.

I really don't see much there to suggest your claims that the systems of checks and balances has been broken within the last six years. Historically the strongest presidents had coattails and brought their own parties into power and control of Congress. These changes occurred often. It is only the 40 year Democratic reign and the four terms of FDR that are the exceptions to the rule. If Bush were just given whatever he wanted by Congress, where is Supreme Court Justice Harriet Myers?

Isn't part of the disbelief regarding the loss by Lincoln Chafee the fact that he was a very independent Republican? When Jeffords didn't like the direction of Congress, didn't he merely switch parties and control? Didn't Senator "Maverick" McCain still engineer the "gang of 14" agreement to essentually grab some control away from the Majority leader? Didn't Lott still have to step down as majority leader when his statements caused a stir?

I guess I don't see your points even if related to Congress. People still defect and change parties. People still have little power grabs of their own. People still goof and lose or leverage and gain power regardless of party. In short, politics is still politics.

Nick

I don't see how any of this post addresses my thesis except one: That Harriet Miers was withdrawn. I'll add others, too: Immigration reform and social security reform were both shot down. But all of those things were after the facade had cracked about year ago, after Katrina. During Bush's presidency until that time, there was very little independence on the part of congress. The government was run as a party machine. Not a single Republicans Senator ever voted against any of Bush's nominees up until that time. Not a single Republican in Congress voted against any of Bush's tax cuts. Not a single Republican voted against the war in Iraq. As far as I know, that's unheard of in American history. It's not unheard of when a president gets Congress to pass his legislation, but the degree of party and White House control over another branch of government is.
post #146 of 196
Thread Starter 
Ice:

Really, the number of problems with your post is almost unreal.

Quote:
Tax cuts do not always stimulate the economy. In some cases they do, but in other cases they just stagnate the economy because the government is not as effective.

Again, your'e making statement which you are then NOT SUPPORTING. You're just spouting off opinions. You're also speaking vaguely (intentionally, IMO) to avoid being pinned down on specifics. So let's cut that out right now: Tax cuts, in general stimulate the economy. They stimulated the economy under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43..

Secondly, you are assuming something that you cannot, that being "government is less effective when taxes are cut." Not only is that very hard to prove, if not impossible, you're ignoring that tax cuts raise revenue not lower it. So your assertion is not only impossible to prove, it's also based on a patently false premise.

Quote:
For instance, when the very wealthy are receiving the majority of the tax cuts and the average middle class worker is not receiving barely any of that tax cut, there is no increased spending.

First, the "wealthy" will always receive more of the tax cut in real dollars because they are the ones paying the taxes. Secondly, the "wealthy", in the government's opinion, are those making over 154,000 a year, combined household income. Then the "super rich" are those in the 6th and highest bracket (which is a "paltry" 35%!), who are making 336,000 or more (I've rounded the numbers...the actual table is found here: http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article...50856,00.html).

Now let's look at that fifth bracket, the one for plain old "rich" people. 154,000 a year sounds like a lot of money. However, consider that two teachers in their 15th year might be making 78,000 a year with a Masters degree. That's right...the government, and apparently YOU, think that two school teachers raising teenagers and saving for college are RICH. I guess instead of paying the progessive rate of 33% on their top bracketable income, they should have payed the pre-Bush tax rate of 38% (disclaimer: I will have to look that up, but I think it's right).

The "rich" deserve to keep their money like the rest of us do, though they of course don't. They pay much more than we peons do, but you want them to pay more. Guess the two teachers from our example are only going to be able to afford a State school for their children, hmm?

But let's put that little real world example aside: You implication that only the rich benefited is ludicrous. I have stated many times that I am a middle income person. I currently make about $58,000 a year as an educator. The Bush tax cuts and changes in the tax code itself have saved well over $2,000 a year, in some cases $3,000 a year. I'm not even talking about case studies like me...Im talking about ME. So the middle class have benefited. You're stuck repeating an anti-Bush liberal myth.

Quote:
The rich will continue to spend and invest the same...

Once again, that's an unsupportable statement. You literally just made it up because it fits your beliefs about fiscal policy. If anything, history has shown that the rich DO invest more into the economy, because we've seen the economic gains happen as a result of tax cuts. No offense, but wrong again.

Quote:
Also, let's talk about the way the government has been using our money. The Iraq war has cost the US over $325 billion dollars in raw costs, and each year it costs us more.

Well, that's sort of a half truth. $300 billion plus has been appropriated. We'd have to look up what's actually be spent.

Quote:
War taxes the economy as well.

What? Who says? War often acts as an economic stimulous. You can't just make stuff up and hope that's it's true.

Quote:
And when it comes down to it, we are spending US tax dollars and big bucks at that to fix someone else's problems.

True, but I can argue that a stable and democratic Iraq is in our interests, and the interests of the world. Whatever..at least it's an issue worthy of debate.

Quote:
And that means we are spending less money on the US which would could be spending on health care, stimulating the economy, and the environment.

There you go again. You posted that for one reason: It sounded good in your head. It's not just unsupportable, it's also...again...patently false. Discretionary, non-defense spending has skyrocketed under Bush and the Republican controlled Congress. It's gone up faster than under the more liberal Clinton Administration. I assume you're going to accept that as fact (because, well, it is) and not make me find a link. But, I will if you won't take my word for it.

As an aside, how exactly would the government spend money to stimulate the economy? Please tell me you're not going to say we should "spend" it on tax cuts for the lower and middle class. Please.

Quote:
And it's not just Iraq's problem, it's George Bush's problem because he wants Oil and an easy access portal to the Middle East. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism; the administration lied about that. All it had to do with was big business and geopolitics.

Wow, you're kind of an Abstract Random, aren't you? "...because he wants Oil...." LOL. Anyway, if you have some evidence that we went to war for oil, then please post it. We already buy billions of barrels of oil from the Middle East, so I really don't see why we'd have to invade to get it.

As for the Admin lying, well there is simply no evidence of that. And Saddam did, demonstrably support terrorism. At the very least he paid $25,000 cash payments to Palestinian suicide bombers. He also at least openly tolerated terrorism operations from within his own country. That much we know...it's not even up for debate.

Quote:
And speaking of oil, the current price of addiction to foreign oil is: $3,442,122,401,117.59

What is that number and how is the "price" of addiction to foreign oil???

Quote:
Clinton was able to balance the national budget, reduce crime and poverty, and under his presidency, there was one of the greatest economies of US history.

You're not listening. I asked you for three examples of specific actions and policies that Clinton ordered or was directly responsible for that caused that stellar economy to develop.

Your links are POINTLESS because I'm not arguing that the economy was better in the 1980s. Clearly you feel the need to try and make this case because...

1) You can't defend your other, indefensible statements
2) It is a case that fits with your pro-Democrat. anti-conservative ideology

Quote:
To give bush SOME credit, the real-estate market boomed during his presidency. The flipside of that is, that its crashing now, and the real-esate market is often good during times of recession.

Your claim about Real Estate and recession is questionable, but I'll let you have that one for now. That said, I want to show you some intellecutal honesty by asking this question: What did Bush do to cause the Real Estate market to be so good? I can't think of anything in particular. The point is you're not only making utterly false claims, you're attributing things to Clinton and Bush and are unable to demonstrate why they should be attributed.

I really don't mean to offend you. I do ask that you answer my questions and either prove your assertions or concede my points about them.
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 #147 of 196
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister

The national debt actually declined under Clinton, when compared to GDP:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Go back and analyze Reagan.

No one has argued otherwise, has he or she?
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 #148 of 196
Thread Starter 
Ice...

Quote:
... And this is where things break down when the middle class are taxed heavily and the rich are not. When the Middle Class are taxed heavily, they are not spending as much money (their form of contribution to the economy -- and the most significant form). However, when the rich have extra money, they spend it in sectors which will not help the economy, and they invest it in sectors which usually will. And while investing money does stimulate and grow the economy, the middle class makes up the largest percent of the population, and without their spending contribution, the economy will not grow quickly, usually causing inflation, and in this case, inflation is bad because it debases the value of the rich's investments and prevents the middle class from spending further.

The top tax bracket in this country is 35%!!! Please, look at this link again:

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article...150856,00.html

Presumably, the middle class would fall into the 3rd and 4th brackets.
(up to 25% and 28% progressive rates). So the 3rd bracket is ten percentage points lower than the top rate, or in terms of percentage of the tax rate, it is almost thirty percent lower than the top bracket.

Secondly, you're again speaking in platitudes and generalities. How do you support the "fact" that the rich don't invest in sectors that help the economy? I'm not disagreeing that the middle class contribute mightily to the economy, by the way, so please don't go there in your reply.
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 #149 of 196
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch

Buy uber expensive foreign sports cars? imported designer clothes? Travel? buy expensive real estate?

If you think a lot of that money comes back to the economy for the benefit of the population as a whole, I have an intergalactic space shuttle ticket for sale for you. First class.

The very rich or savvy investors never use their own money for business or real estate development.

WHAT?
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 #150 of 196
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

Cris Chilla:

We were thinking about inflations under different terms. Your deffinition of inflation only includes that for which is defined under Kenesian economics.

When the purchasing power gets too great (and yes, this can happen), inflation is needed to let the sellars component of the economy to keep up, which may cause a very temporary resession... but when purchasing power increases again, the economy will usually be larger than before. Some people refer to this as wave economics (because of the way the waves come in when the tide is rising).

I think you've got yourself twisted up in a tangled web of circular logic!

Seriously, who is inflation good for? I mean, abstract and academic macro economic theory is fine, but the question is: Is inflation ever good for the consumer and for, say, the US (or, pick a country) economy on the whole?

No, of course not. It lowers purchasing power. It might be good in your economic text book as some intellecutal exercise. On the real planet Earth it is never good under any normal circumstance, with perhaps the "Germany exception" aside.

That is why we as a nation are always trying to fight inflation. This is why the federal reserve tries to "cool off" the economy when GDP growth is 6% or more. When demand is booming like that and the economy is growing too fast, it becomes unsustainable due to impending and potential inflation. This is why interest rates remained sky high in the late 1970s...we were trying to fight inflation, which was by far the biggest problem in the economy.

You're wrong again. Sorry. Oh, and by the way, your fishing for info on Chris's personal info was cheap. It makes not difference. It was a positively jimmacian (a term I've coined) tactic.
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 #151 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

No one has argued otherwise, has he or she?

Well, someone DID say that Bush's deficit was equal to that of Clintons when compared to GDP.

Anyways, I wasn't really disagreeing as much as it may seem, I was just playing devil's advocate. But I couldn't really give a shit right now because the Simpsons is on.

About the taxes.... the majority of tax dollars come from the middle/working class, not the rich.

And honestly... what is with the many posts in a row?
post #152 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

On the real planet Earth it is never good under any normal circumstance, with perhaps the "Germany exception" aside.

What "Germany exception" are you referring to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

That is why we as a nation are always trying to fight inflation.

The "dirty little secret" is that "we as a nation" (the government and the Federal Reserve anyway) are the ones doing the inflating (expanding the money supply...basically fabricating new money out of thin air). They are the one's printing ("creating") the money. This is why understanding what inflation really is is so important. When people don't know what inflation is (expansion of the money supply) they don't know what the real solution is (stopping the government from continuing to debauch the currency) and instead fall back on policies to "fight higher prices". This is about understanding what the root cause is as opposed to the symptoms (which is usually what we are focused on).
post #153 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

What "Germany exception" are you referring to?


Am I on your ignore list again?

Weimar Republic 'exception'.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #154 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

It killed Germany's debt by allowing their currency to hyperinflate; thus inflation can be used for good (even if the citizens suffered a bit during that time, Germany's depression was the shortest of all Western Nations due to this debt riddance)...

"The citizens suffered a bit"?

Good one.



It was one of the most devastating periods.
post #155 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Again, your'e making statement which you are then NOT SUPPORTING. You're just spouting off opinions. You're also speaking vaguely (intentionally, IMO) to avoid being pinned down on specifics. So let's cut that out right now: Tax cuts, in general stimulate the economy. They stimulated the economy under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43..

How do you figure? The recoveries under Reagan and Bush 43 were no stronger than they were under Clinton, who raised taxes. There was no difference in economic growth, only in deficits.

This notion that you can cut taxes and the economy will grow even more and you can spend whatever you want and deficits don't matter is the fundamental lie of conservative economics since Reagan. Tax cuts are good for politicians' re-election campaigns, and for creating deficits, and that's all. No economist believes tax cuts increase revenues. It just doesn't happen, and the only people who says so are politicians and talk radio hosts and those who parrot them.

Every time it's been tried, deficits have gone through the roof. In the early 2000s, after Bush's tax cuts, revenues were at a post-WWII low (as a % of GDP). Revenues have only just this past year finally started to increase again, 5 years into the recovery.

It's simply dishonest SDW, and it's dishonest in a way that's damaging to our country. If you want to debate about the level of spendingandtaxes, keeping those two in line, then great. But please stop it with this line that we can cut taxes and everything will be A-OK.
post #156 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

How do you figure? The recoveries under Reagan and Bush 43 were no stronger than they were under Clinton, who raised taxes. There was no difference in economic growth, only in deficits.

That is a bit misleading. The real growth under Clinton came 2nd term and primarily after he (also) cut the capital gains tax rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

This notion that you can cut taxes and the economy will grow even more and you can spend whatever you want and deficits don't matter is the fundamental lie of conservative economics since Reagan.

Actually is it more modern than that. Reagan would not have run deficits if he hadn't also had bankrupting the Russians as part of his defense strategy. The "deficits" don't matter is a delusion of the current Keynesian Republican administration who was unable to recognize the different historical and economic contexts (Reagan era vs. Bush II era).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

Tax cuts are good for politicians' re-election campaigns, and for creating deficits, and that's all.

Well...and for people that pay taxes...that too. That's kind of important...well to some of us anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

No economist believes tax cuts increase revenues.

You need to be careful about such statements. Especially when they aren't true. Perosnally I believe that it can work under certain circumstances (namely higher unemployment and higher tax rates)...and needs to be done in the right way (i.e., the right tax cuts). The idea being that tax cuts free up capital that unleashes consumer spending and business investment that creates jobs to employ those not employed (turning them into tax payers). But, as a fiscal conservative, I also believe strongly in holding (or reducing) spending along with the tax cuts...mostly because if the revenue increase doesn't materialize then you are no worse off (probably better though...lower taxes and lower spending)...but if they do, and a surplus occurs, this can be used to pay down debt...eventually creating even larger surpluses (as interest on debt decreases)...accelerating debt repayment (compounding works both ways).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

Every time it's been tried, deficits have gone through the roof.

Be careful here. That doesn't necessarily mean that revenues didn't go up, it might be that spending went up faster/higher than revenues did.
post #157 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

"The citizens suffered a bit"?

Good one.



It was one of the most devastating periods.

Far shorter and far less devastating than the World Wide Depression that hammered all but Germany.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #158 of 196
Using the Weimar Republic as an example of how "good" inflation can be is laughable, twisted and dishonest. First, I dare say that in regard to the debt issue, I doubt anyone would be so cavalier if they were a lender. Second, the recovery happened because they stopped the inflation. In short if you mean that something is "good" because it is good for some but terrible for others...then, yes, I guess "inflation" can be good.
post #159 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Using the Weimar Republic as an example of how "good" inflation can be is laughable, twisted and dishonest. First, I dare say that in regard to the debt issue, I doubt anyone would be so cavalier if they were a lender. Second, the recovery happened because they stopped the inflation. In short if you mean that something is "good" because it is good for some but terrible for others...then, yes, I guess "inflation" can be good.

Whats with all the dramatic words? Your problem is your attitude. Your thoughts aren't bad.
post #160 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball

Whats with all the dramatic words? Your problem is your attitude. Your thoughts aren't bad.

Sorry that you disapprove.

I guess I call it like I see it.

I think that trying to justify inflation (let alone hyperinflation) as "good" because one group could essentially steal from another (by repaying debts with worthless paper) is kind of twisted.

I understand all of the problems and issues with Germany's debt and war reparations at the time...but that is hardly solid ground to stand on from a justification perspective. But, maybe in a world where wrong + wrong = right, it works out just fine.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Congratulations to the Dems