Discussion:
Kerry and taxes
(too old to reply)
RalphNader 2004
2004-09-04 16:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Kerry promises to raise dividend, and capital gains taxes, and to raise
income tax rates!
Boob
2004-09-04 16:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by RalphNader 2004
Kerry promises to raise dividend, and capital gains taxes,
and to raise income tax rates!
But not a penny to be collected from the criminal tax evaders
detailed in http://home.earthlink.net/~boob.for.president/taxes.htm.
Boob :-)##


Have you covered your nut yet this year? If not, may I suggest
researching http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
instead of listening to hypists in misc.invest.stocks? If you wish
to email me go to http://home.earthlink.net/~bgrumbin
Cyndi
2004-09-04 17:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Cross posting is not allowed in this ng, please delete it if you reply
--
Cyndi - Forum Manager
Investor Discussions
Post by RalphNader 2004
Kerry promises to raise dividend, and capital gains taxes, and to raise
income tax rates!
BUSH LIED!
2004-09-04 17:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by RalphNader 2004
Kerry promises to raise dividend, and capital gains taxes, and to raise
income tax rates!
Bush promises more wars
Jmac
2004-09-04 17:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by BUSH LIED!
Post by RalphNader 2004
Kerry promises to raise dividend, and capital gains taxes, and to raise
income tax rates!
Bush promises more wars
Bush promises more and bigger Deficit !
Bush promises an even worst Depression !
BUSH LIED!
2004-09-04 18:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jmac
Post by BUSH LIED!
Post by RalphNader 2004
Kerry promises to raise dividend, and capital gains taxes, and to raise
income tax rates!
Bush promises more wars
Bush promises more and bigger Deficit !
Bush promises an even worst Depression !
Bush promises more Bushisms

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/BushUnityConfSovereignty.wmv
NoEd
2004-09-06 02:04:44 UTC
Permalink
I must of missed bigger deficit and more wars in his speech. Thanks for
helping.
Post by Jmac
Post by BUSH LIED!
Post by RalphNader 2004
Kerry promises to raise dividend, and capital gains taxes, and to raise
income tax rates!
Bush promises more wars
Bush promises more and bigger Deficit !
Bush promises an even worst Depression !
Frank Lodge
2004-09-04 20:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by RalphNader 2004
Kerry promises to raise dividend, and capital gains taxes, and to raise
income tax rates!
And this is a surprise because....? My God,he's a democrat,he's
*married* at least $1.3 billion in his life (so far)...and he's
from Massachusetts!
Ed
2004-09-04 21:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Lodge
And this is a surprise because....? My God,he's a democrat,he's
*married* at least $1.3 billion in his life (so far)...and he's
from Massachusetts!
That "Lodge", is it in your throat? Hope so.

As someone who doesn't like Kerry and is from Massachusetts I have no idea
what you're inferring. Which of our 50 states is lucky enough to have an
asswipe like you as a citizen and taxpayer?
Frank Lodge
2004-09-05 02:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
Post by Frank Lodge
And this is a surprise because....? My God,he's a democrat,he's
*married* at least $1.3 billion in his life (so far)...and he's
from Massachusetts!
That "Lodge", is it in your throat? Hope so.
As someone who doesn't like Kerry and is from Massachusetts I have no idea
what you're inferring. Which of our 50 states is lucky enough to have an
asswipe like you as a citizen and taxpayer?
OK,pal...let's analyze this...point by point.

The basic premise of the original post was that Kerry will raise
taxes,pretty much across the board.

I asked,rhetorically,why this should be a surprise to anybody.
I noted that he's a democrat.You know,DEMOCRAT,as in "he's willing
to give people the shirt off of *your* back".

I noted that he's married at least $1.3 billion dollars
in his life (first wife worth $300 million,Mother Teresa
worth *at least* a billion).It is,one *must* admit,quite easy
to be a liberal when you've got access to a billion dollars,
top notch (and politically connected)lawyers and top notch
accountants.

I also noted that he's from Massachusetts.No explanation is
needed...at least not for the fine folks of the Southern and
Midwest battle ground states.And any attempt to explain it to
to a resident of the Gay State would surely be an exercise
in futility.
Ed
2004-09-05 08:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Lodge
Post by Ed
Post by Frank Lodge
And this is a surprise because....? My God,he's a democrat,he's
*married* at least $1.3 billion in his life (so far)...and he's
from Massachusetts!
That "Lodge", is it in your throat? Hope so.
As someone who doesn't like Kerry and is from Massachusetts I have no idea
what you're inferring. Which of our 50 states is lucky enough to have an
asswipe like you as a citizen and taxpayer?
OK,pal...let's analyze this...point by point.
I'm not your pal.
Post by Frank Lodge
The basic premise of the original post was that Kerry will raise
taxes,pretty much across the board.
That isn't true.
Post by Frank Lodge
I asked,rhetorically,why this should be a surprise to anybody.
I noted that he's a democrat.You know,DEMOCRAT,as in "he's willing
to give people the shirt off of *your* back".
Understood and mostly agree.
Post by Frank Lodge
I noted that he's married at least $1.3 billion dollars
in his life (first wife worth $300 million,Mother Teresa
worth *at least* a billion).It is,one *must* admit,quite easy
to be a liberal when you've got access to a billion dollars,
top notch (and politically connected)lawyers and top notch
accountants.
Yes, he does marry rich woman but he was rich himself. Millionaires tend to
socialize with millionaires.
Post by Frank Lodge
I also noted that he's from Massachusetts.No explanation is
needed...at least not for the fine folks of the Southern and
Midwest battle ground states.And any attempt to explain it to
to a resident of the Gay State would surely be an exercise
in futility.
Gay people are everywhere. The Governor (a Republican) is against gay
marriage. To be honest, if I was asked which of the states is THE gay state
I would have guessed California.
VikingTrader
2004-09-05 17:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
Post by Frank Lodge
I also noted that he's from Massachusetts.
No explanation is needed...at least not for
the fine folks of the Southern and Midwest
battle ground states.And any attempt to
explain it to a resident of the Gay State
would surely be an exercise in futility.
To be honest, if I was asked which of the
states is THE gay state I would have guessed
California.
Deliverance showed us the true color of those
fine folks from down South.
larrymoencurly
2004-09-06 03:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Lodge
I also noted that he's from Massachusetts.No explanation is
needed...at least not for the fine folks of the Southern and
Midwest battle ground states.
"Fine folks"? They don't call the Bible Belt the Sin Belt for nothing
-- the more churches there are in a place, the more bars and strip
clubs there are as well, and the South leads the nation in divorce,
wife beating, abortion, and church attendance. What a bunch of
hypocrites.

During WWII, the Midwest was the bastion of the isolationists who not
only didn't want to fight the Axis but also actually admired Hitler.
Post by Frank Lodge
And any attempt to explain it to to a resident of the Gay State
would surely be an exercise in futility.
I'll bet that you're as straight as Roy Cohn and J. Edgar Hoover.
c***@webtv.net
2004-09-05 20:59:25 UTC
Permalink
so, when you are chanting for kerry, do you stare at a picture of satan
or just nuzzle a hog penis? i was just reffering to your last post.

"The real WMD's in Iraq are the Terrorists we are fighting. N erve gas,
nukes,poison are all worthless without a Terrorist to use them"
NoEd
2004-09-04 23:53:07 UTC
Permalink
What is really crazy is the number of nincompoops on this NG who support
Kerry. I have yet to see how raising taxes will help anyone other than the
people directly receiving the extorted money.
Post by Frank Lodge
Post by RalphNader 2004
Kerry promises to raise dividend, and capital gains taxes, and to raise
income tax rates!
And this is a surprise because....? My God,he's a democrat,he's
*married* at least $1.3 billion in his life (so far)...and he's
from Massachusetts!
Frank Lodge
2004-09-05 02:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
What is really crazy is the number of nincompoops on this NG who support
Kerry. I have yet to see how raising taxes will help anyone other than the
people directly receiving the extorted money.
My guess is that "Ed" is a member of a teacher's union.Or AFSCME.
That would make him an obvious beneficiary of this extortion.
Ed
2004-09-05 08:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Lodge
Post by NoEd
What is really crazy is the number of nincompoops on this NG who support
Kerry. I have yet to see how raising taxes will help anyone other than the
people directly receiving the extorted money.
My guess is that "Ed" is a member of a teacher's union.Or AFSCME.
That would make him an obvious beneficiary of this extortion.
You guessed wrong. You're batting 1000. I have no use for unions at all.
Other things I oppose are farm subsidies and protectionism through
unreasonable tarriffs. Also had no use for NAFTA.
NoEd
2004-09-05 16:31:42 UTC
Permalink
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1592
Post by Ed
Post by Frank Lodge
Post by NoEd
What is really crazy is the number of nincompoops on this NG who support
Kerry. I have yet to see how raising taxes will help anyone other than
the
Post by Frank Lodge
Post by NoEd
people directly receiving the extorted money.
My guess is that "Ed" is a member of a teacher's union.Or AFSCME.
That would make him an obvious beneficiary of this extortion.
You guessed wrong. You're batting 1000. I have no use for unions at all.
Other things I oppose are farm subsidies and protectionism through
unreasonable tarriffs. Also had no use for NAFTA.
Last2Know
2004-09-05 02:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
What is really crazy is the number of nincompoops on this NG who support
Kerry. I have yet to see how raising taxes will help anyone other than the
people directly receiving the extorted money.
NoEd, you sound like you are pretty sure you understand
the relationship between taxes, government debt, and
expeditures.

At least you are confident enough on these topics that
you can speak condescendingly of others. So you should
have no trouble answering a few basic background questions
about the issues. Here they are:

1) Does the level of U.S. National Debt matter?
Are there any consequences to making the debt too
large? What are those consequences?

2) Are there any expenditures in the Federal budget
that help people other than beneficiaries of social
security, medicare, and social programs for the poor?

3) Has the U.S. govt. successfully collected enough
revenue to pay for its past expenditures?

4) Does the U.S. govt. plan to collect enough money
for its future expenditures?

5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised
while maintaining levels of expenditure for things like
defense, roads, scientific research, etc. at a level
that keeps pace with inflation?

6) Does the current financial balance of the U.S. govt.
depend in any important way on the willingness of
foreign creditors to lend the govt. money? If so,
what is the relationship of this willingness to the
levels of govt. debt and spending?

7) Does Kerry plan to raise taxes for people earning
less than 200,000 per year?
Post by NoEd
Post by Frank Lodge
Post by RalphNader 2004
Kerry promises to raise dividend, and capital gains taxes, and to raise
income tax rates!
And this is a surprise because....? My God,he's a democrat,he's
*married* at least $1.3 billion in his life (so far)...and he's
from Massachusetts!
NoEd
2004-09-05 15:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Let me help you here.

7) Does Kerry plan to raise taxes for people earning
Post by Last2Know
less than 200,000 per year?
In a typical class warfare move he states he will raise taxes on those
making more than $200,000. And if there is additional money extorted, he
will use the money to pay for increased healthcare spending.

Both of these are a disaster. Taxes are already too high and it is immoral
to have somebody else pay for another's healthcare. We need LESS spending
by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of the healthcare pie being
taken over by private sector, esp. less direct spending like Medicare and
Medicaid programs. Healthcare is not a right, i.e. no one owes me
healthcare.

1) Does the level of U.S. National Debt matter?
Post by Last2Know
Are there any consequences to making the debt too
large? What are those consequences?
Of course it matters, but its current size is not a problem. Interest rates
were at record lows not to long ago. The solution is to freeze social and
pork barrel spending and grow out of the debt.
Post by Last2Know
2) Are there any expenditures in the Federal budget
that help people other than beneficiaries of social
security, medicare, and social programs for the poor?
If there is, they need to be eliminated.


3) Has the U.S. govt. successfully collected enough
Post by Last2Know
revenue to pay for its past expenditures?
I guess the question is can the total national debt be paid off now. The
answer is no.


4) Does the U.S. govt. plan to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
for its future expenditures?
It depends if spending is cut.


5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised
while maintaining levels of expenditure for things like
defense, roads, scientific research, etc. at a level
that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?

6) Does the current financial balance of the U.S. govt.
Post by Last2Know
depend in any important way on the willingness of
foreign creditors to lend the govt. money? If so,
what is the relationship of this willingness to the
levels of govt. debt and spending?
They are willing because the US debt is risk free. They are only willing
because it is to their advantage.




What must be done is that social and pork barrel spending needs to be mostly
eliminated. The government has taken on roles it was never intended to
take. Finally, you cannot have wealth without rich people. This is one of
those dirty little secrets the left doesn't want to acknowledge.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
What is really crazy is the number of nincompoops on this NG who support
Kerry. I have yet to see how raising taxes will help anyone other than the
people directly receiving the extorted money.
NoEd, you sound like you are pretty sure you understand
the relationship between taxes, government debt, and
expeditures.
At least you are confident enough on these topics that
you can speak condescendingly of others. So you should
have no trouble answering a few basic background questions
1) Does the level of U.S. National Debt matter?
Are there any consequences to making the debt too
large? What are those consequences?
2) Are there any expenditures in the Federal budget
that help people other than beneficiaries of social
security, medicare, and social programs for the poor?
3) Has the U.S. govt. successfully collected enough
revenue to pay for its past expenditures?
4) Does the U.S. govt. plan to collect enough money
for its future expenditures?
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised
while maintaining levels of expenditure for things like
defense, roads, scientific research, etc. at a level
that keeps pace with inflation?
6) Does the current financial balance of the U.S. govt.
depend in any important way on the willingness of
foreign creditors to lend the govt. money? If so,
what is the relationship of this willingness to the
levels of govt. debt and spending?
7) Does Kerry plan to raise taxes for people earning
less than 200,000 per year?
Post by NoEd
Post by Frank Lodge
Post by RalphNader 2004
Kerry promises to raise dividend, and capital gains taxes, and to raise
income tax rates!
And this is a surprise because....? My God,he's a democrat,he's
*married* at least $1.3 billion in his life (so far)...and he's
from Massachusetts!
Last2Know
2004-09-05 17:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Let me help you here.
Thanks for responding. I'm going to criticize
some of your answers, but I appreciate the effort.
Post by NoEd
7) Does Kerry plan to raise taxes for people earning
Post by Last2Know
less than 200,000 per year?
In a typical class warfare move he states he will raise taxes on those
making more than $200,000. And if there is additional money extorted, he
will use the money to pay for increased healthcare spending.
I don't see this description of a policy as class warfare.
The Bush admin and Republican Congress introduced a number
of tax cuts over the last four years that had concentrated
benefits for high income and wealthy people. These included
changes to the tax rates, lowering of taxes on dividends,
and eliminating taxes on inheritances over $1,000,000
(the amount under that was previously scheduled to be
tax free during the time period affected by the legislative
change). At the same time, we went from a budget surplus
to a severe budget deficit that will get worse in the
future as a greater proportion of the workforce hits
retirement age. Bush and the Repub Congress reduced
revenues and increased spending on both Defense and Domestic
programs resulting in a lot of budget strain. This is a repeat
of what last happened under Regan and the Dem Congress of the 1980s.
It should be clear to both responsible Dems and Repubs that we
need to either increase revenues or reduce spending. Kerry is
at least saying how he will increase revenues and I support
your implied criticism that he is not specific enough.

Bush has not communicated to the voters what he
will do to either reduce spending or increase revenue
(if it is buried in fine print on his website somewhere
basically none of the voters or the media have picked
up on it). Don't you think that voters have a right
to understand what policies they are voting for with
these candidate? Isn't it wrong for them to believe
that he will not increase taxes and also not touch
any spending programs that they care about? In this
sense, Bush is running on a bigger fiction than Kerry.
Post by NoEd
Both of these are a disaster. Taxes are already too high and it is
immoral to have somebody else pay for another's healthcare.
Why is it immoral and how does it differ from what we
already have? We have Medicare and Medicaid. When
you work for a company and you are single then you
pay for the healthcare of people with families.
How do you expect people with a lot of healthcare
issues that limit their productivity to always
pay for their own healthcare? Do you think
any sort of societal safety net is immoral and
it should always be every person for themselves?
Post by NoEd
We need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of the
healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp. less direct
spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs. Healthcare is not a
right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required
to pay for your own private security force? How
about defense? Why am I required to pay taxes to
support sending cruise missles hither and thither and
having my neighbors get blown up by suicide bombers
in Iraq?
Post by NoEd
1) Does the level of U.S. National Debt matter?
Post by Last2Know
Are there any consequences to making the debt too large? What are
those consequences?
Of course it matters, but its current size is not a problem.
The current size is growing every year and projected to
grow faster in the future. You didn't answer my question
about what the consequences are. Without analyzing that
we can't really know that even the current size isn't
a problem. Just because things haven't collapsed yet
doesn't mean we haven't set processes in motion that
will have bad consequences. Why exactly do you think
we can count on Far East banks wanting to hold more and
more U.S. govt. bonds in the future? Surely the
attractiveness of those bonds depends on interest rates
in other countries, that our govt. has no control
over. What do you think will happen to our ability
to continue borrowing when Japan and/or China decide
that fighting inflation instead of pumping growth is
their current fiscal priority?
Post by NoEd
Interest
rates were at record lows not to long ago. The solution is to freeze
social and pork barrel spending and grow out of the debt.
I bet just about everybody, no matter what their political
leanings, would profess themselves to be against "pork
barrel spending". The Bush administration has shown
itself to have absolutely no inclination to fight spending
of any type, and it sounds like his platform for the
next four years offers lots of new spending proposals.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
2) Are there any expenditures in the Federal budget that help people
other than beneficiaries of social security, medicare, and social
programs for the poor?
If there is, they need to be eliminated.
So you want to eliminate defense spending, spending for
highway maintenance, spending on scientific research, etc?
Post by NoEd
3) Has the U.S. govt. successfully collected enough
Post by Last2Know
revenue to pay for its past expenditures?
I guess the question is can the total national debt be paid off now. The
answer is no.
Right.
Post by NoEd
4) Does the U.S. govt. plan to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
for its future expenditures?
It depends if spending is cut.
I haven't seen any serious plan from either party to
prevent the debt from continuing to grow.
Post by NoEd
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised while
maintaining levels of expenditure for things like defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised".
Social security payments that keep pace with inflation is
an example of a big part of the Federal budget that has
been promised. You know that we have a graduated income
tax rate, but we have a non-graduated payroll tax rate that
kicks in for all salaried people before income/withholding
tax even applies. We take the same 7.6% from each person
and also from their employer no matter what their income
or means and we tell them that this is mostly for their future
social security payments. The govt. could cancel those
future payments, but then it would have lied to all those
people and taken money from them by force on false pretenses.
Post by NoEd
6) Does the current financial balance of the U.S. govt.
Post by Last2Know
depend in any important way on the willingness of foreign creditors to
lend the govt. money? If so, what is the relationship of this
willingness to the levels of govt. debt and spending?
They are willing because the US debt is risk free. They are only
willing because it is to their advantage.
But the U.S. debt isn't really risk free, even if we
assume the govt. will pay the promised amount, because
the value of the U.S. currency can decline dramatically
against other currencies. When the govt., in effect,
prints more money by putting dollars into circulation
(while at the same time there is a large and growing
U.S. current accounts deficit with our trading partners)
we devalue the fundamentals of the currency. Why would
I want to buy a 30 year U.S. Treasury note when I
think I will get paid back in less valuable currency
in the future? If I'm a foreign lender, that is a
very serious question. So the rate at which the govt.
can borrow is very influenced by the future perception
of inflation relative to the currency and that depends
in part on how much we need to borrow in the future.
Post by NoEd
What must be done is that social and pork barrel spending needs to be
mostly eliminated. The government has taken on roles it was never
intended to take.
One place where we differ is that it is obvious to
me that a second Bush administration with a Republican
Congress is going to lead to more and worse spending
by the govt. They spend in all sorts of indirect
ways as well. For example by allowing corporations
to pollute more and by selling them public resources
at below market cost. They also work hard to make
the bureaucracy less efficient by basically firing
every whistle blower who goes public with a story
about violations of the public trust in their dept.
To me, the Bush administration has established
a clear pattern of always placing short term
political interests ahead of the broader public
good.
Post by NoEd
Finally, you cannot have wealth without rich people.
This is one of those dirty little secrets the left doesn't want to
acknowledge.
This is silly hyperbole. Nobody I know is working
to eliminate wealth or rich people. Also, being
wealthy is less desirable if their is more crime
and vagrancy, roads are falling apart, the environment
is polluted, etc.
Peter Pan
2004-09-05 20:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Let me help you here.
Thanks for responding. I'm going to criticize
some of your answers, but I appreciate the effort.
Post by NoEd
7) Does Kerry plan to raise taxes for people earning
Post by Last2Know
less than 200,000 per year?
In a typical class warfare move he states he will raise taxes on those
making more than $200,000. And if there is additional money extorted, he
will use the money to pay for increased healthcare spending.
I don't see this description of a policy as class warfare.
The Bush admin and Republican Congress introduced a number
of tax cuts over the last four years that had concentrated
benefits for high income and wealthy people. <stuff snipped>
Assuming Kerry is telling something even close to the truth, the taxes on
anyone over $200,000 would only increase the tax base by 600 billion, yet he
has proposed increasing spending by 2 TRILLION! Add up his spending
promises... where do you think that 1.4 TRILLION will come from?!?!?!? Guess
what? he LIED so he can get votes from people too silly to figure where the
money is gonna come from!
Peter Pan
2004-09-05 20:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Here's a fun one. I am currently in Las Vegas so have a bit of vested
interest in Yucca Mountain... For all those years Kerry was a NW senator, he
pushed for Yucca to get the radioactive waste out of his back yard and into
someone else's.

In typical flip-flop fashion, now that Nevada is a swing state, he is
advertising and speaking here saying he has ALWAYS been against Yucca and
will NEVER allow it to be in Nevada...
Boob
2004-09-05 22:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Here's a fun one. I am currently in Las Vegas so have a bit
of vested interest in Yucca Mountain... For all those years
Kerry was a NW senator, he pushed for Yucca to get the
radioactive waste out of his back yard and into someone else's.
In typical flip-flop fashion, now that Nevada is a swing state,
he is advertising and speaking here saying he has ALWAYS been
against Yucca and will NEVER allow it to be in Nevada...
http://home.earthlink.net/~boob.for.president/yucca.htm
Boob :-)##


Have you covered your nut yet this year? If not, may I suggest
researching http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
instead of listening to hypists in misc.invest.stocks? If you wish
to email me go to http://home.earthlink.net/~bgrumbin
NoEd
2004-09-06 02:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Kerry is for whatever gets him votes. He really must think the electorate
is stupid. Bush hit it on the head, you know where he stands. The only
thing Kerry has going for him for many Kerry supporters is that he is not
Bush. This approach will not win him the election.

He is desperate for a something to hit Bush with.
Post by Peter Pan
Here's a fun one. I am currently in Las Vegas so have a bit of vested
interest in Yucca Mountain... For all those years Kerry was a NW senator, he
pushed for Yucca to get the radioactive waste out of his back yard and into
someone else's.
In typical flip-flop fashion, now that Nevada is a swing state, he is
advertising and speaking here saying he has ALWAYS been against Yucca and
will NEVER allow it to be in Nevada...
NoEd
2004-09-06 01:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Let me help you here.
Thanks for responding. I'm going to criticize
some of your answers, but I appreciate the effort.
Post by NoEd
7) Does Kerry plan to raise taxes for people earning
Post by Last2Know
less than 200,000 per year?
In a typical class warfare move he states he will raise taxes on those
making more than $200,000. And if there is additional money extorted, he
will use the money to pay for increased healthcare spending.
I don't see this description of a policy as class warfare.
The Bush admin and Republican Congress introduced a number
of tax cuts over the last four years that had concentrated
benefits for high income and wealthy people.
What is wealthy? Beside, they are paying nearlly all the taxes, so who else
would benefit from a tax cut?

These included
Post by Last2Know
changes to the tax rates, lowering of taxes on dividends,
and eliminating taxes on inheritances over $1,000,000
(the amount under that was previously scheduled to be
tax free during the time period affected by the legislative
change). At the same time, we went from a budget surplus
to a severe budget deficit that will get worse in the
future as a greater proportion of the workforce hits
retirement age. Bush and the Repub Congress reduced
revenues and increased spending on both Defense and Domestic
programs resulting in a lot of budget strain. This is a repeat
of what last happened under Regan and the Dem Congress of the 1980s.
It should be clear to both responsible Dems and Repubs that we
need to either increase revenues or reduce spending. Kerry is
at least saying how he will increase revenues and I support
your implied criticism that he is not specific enough.
We can increase revenues by reducing taxes. It happened under Reagan.
Post by Last2Know
Bush has not communicated to the voters what he
will do to either reduce spending or increase revenue
(if it is buried in fine print on his website somewhere
basically none of the voters or the media have picked
up on it). Don't you think that voters have a right
to understand what policies they are voting for with
these candidate? Isn't it wrong for them to believe
that he will not increase taxes and also not touch
any spending programs that they care about? In this
sense, Bush is running on a bigger fiction than Kerry.
Yes he has. He will not increase taxes thereby increasing revenue. Reread
his speech, and this time closely, or try this site:
http://www.georgewbush.com/.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Both of these are a disaster. Taxes are already too high and it is
immoral to have somebody else pay for another's healthcare.
Why is it immoral and how does it differ from what we
already have? We have Medicare and Medicaid. When
you work for a company and you are single then you
pay for the healthcare of people with families.
How do you expect people with a lot of healthcare
issues that limit their productivity to always
pay for their own healthcare? Do you think
any sort of societal safety net is immoral and
it should always be every person for themselves?
Why is it immoral to take anothers property? Try the ten commandments.
Sure we need a safety net, but Medicare and SS is not based on need.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of the
healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp. less direct
spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs. Healthcare is not a
right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required
to pay for your own private security force? How
about defense? Why am I required to pay taxes to
support sending cruise missles hither and thither and
having my neighbors get blown up by suicide bombers
in Iraq?
Policing is a function of government as is national defense. Bad example.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
1) Does the level of U.S. National Debt matter?
Post by Last2Know
Are there any consequences to making the debt too large? What are
those consequences?
Of course it matters, but its current size is not a problem.
The current size is growing every year and projected to
grow faster in the future. You didn't answer my question
about what the consequences are. Without analyzing that
we can't really know that even the current size isn't
a problem. Just because things haven't collapsed yet
doesn't mean we haven't set processes in motion that
will have bad consequences. Why exactly do you think
we can count on Far East banks wanting to hold more and
more U.S. govt. bonds in the future? Surely the
attractiveness of those bonds depends on interest rates
in other countries, that our govt. has no control
over. What do you think will happen to our ability
to continue borrowing when Japan and/or China decide
that fighting inflation instead of pumping growth is
their current fiscal priority?
The solution is tocut spending and reduce taxes. Society is way overtaxed.
Simple but not easy.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Interest
rates were at record lows not to long ago. The solution is to freeze
social and pork barrel spending and grow out of the debt.
I bet just about everybody, no matter what their political
leanings, would profess themselves to be against "pork
barrel spending". The Bush administration has shown
itself to have absolutely no inclination to fight spending
of any type, and it sounds like his platform for the
next four years offers lots of new spending proposals.
I agree he spends too much, buy Kerry is a left wing radical, so he is no
solution.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
2) Are there any expenditures in the Federal budget that help people
other than beneficiaries of social security, medicare, and social
programs for the poor?
If there is, they need to be eliminated.
So you want to eliminate defense spending, spending for
highway maintenance, spending on scientific research, etc?
Defense no. We have too many highways. And yes, most scientific research is
wasted money.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
3) Has the U.S. govt. successfully collected enough
Post by Last2Know
revenue to pay for its past expenditures?
I guess the question is can the total national debt be paid off now. The
answer is no.
Right.
Post by NoEd
4) Does the U.S. govt. plan to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
for its future expenditures?
It depends if spending is cut.
I haven't seen any serious plan from either party to
prevent the debt from continuing to grow.
Post by NoEd
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised while
maintaining levels of expenditure for things like defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised".
Social security payments that keep pace with inflation is
an example of a big part of the Federal budget that has
been promised. You know that we have a graduated income
tax rate, but we have a non-graduated payroll tax rate that
kicks in for all salaried people before income/withholding
tax even applies. We take the same 7.6% from each person
and also from their employer no matter what their income
or means and we tell them that this is mostly for their future
social security payments. The govt. could cancel those
future payments, but then it would have lied to all those
people and taken money from them by force on false pretenses.
The President laid out a plan for SS. Alan Greenspan has indicated that
"promised" payments cannot be maintained.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
6) Does the current financial balance of the U.S. govt.
Post by Last2Know
depend in any important way on the willingness of foreign creditors to
lend the govt. money? If so, what is the relationship of this
willingness to the levels of govt. debt and spending?
They are willing because the US debt is risk free. They are only
willing because it is to their advantage.
But the U.S. debt isn't really risk free, even if we
assume the govt. will pay the promised amount, because
the value of the U.S. currency can decline dramatically
against other currencies. When the govt., in effect,
prints more money by putting dollars into circulation
(while at the same time there is a large and growing
U.S. current accounts deficit with our trading partners)
we devalue the fundamentals of the currency. Why would
I want to buy a 30 year U.S. Treasury note when I
think I will get paid back in less valuable currency
in the future? If I'm a foreign lender, that is a
very serious question. So the rate at which the govt.
can borrow is very influenced by the future perception
of inflation relative to the currency and that depends
in part on how much we need to borrow in the future.
Nothing is absolutely risk free, but for all practical purposes it is risk
free.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
What must be done is that social and pork barrel spending needs to be
mostly eliminated. The government has taken on roles it was never
intended to take.
One place where we differ is that it is obvious to
me that a second Bush administration with a Republican
Congress is going to lead to more and worse spending
by the govt. They spend in all sorts of indirect
ways as well. For example by allowing corporations
to pollute more and by selling them public resources
at below market cost. They also work hard to make
the bureaucracy less efficient by basically firing
every whistle blower who goes public with a story
about violations of the public trust in their dept.
To me, the Bush administration has established
a clear pattern of always placing short term
political interests ahead of the broader public
good.
Kerry would be worse on all counts. You have to look where the source of
the solutions will most likely come. Bush over Kerry is a no brainer.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Finally, you cannot have wealth without rich people.
This is one of those dirty little secrets the left doesn't want to
acknowledge.
This is silly hyperbole. Nobody I know is working
to eliminate wealth or rich people. Also, being
wealthy is less desirable if their is more crime
and vagrancy, roads are falling apart, the environment
is polluted, etc.
No its not. By taxing the "rich" you are doing just that: punishing those
who are most productive and who provide the wealth to support everything.
Are there more vagrancy, crime etc in Beverly Hills or Fort Wayne, Indiana?
Is the environment better in the US or in Bangledesh or Mexico?

Your statements are silly. Like rich versus polluted environment could be
opposites. Lets see if we agree on something easy. The Dept. of Education
needs be eliminated Do you agree?
Last2Know
2004-09-06 03:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Let me help you here.
Thanks for responding. I'm going to criticize
some of your answers, but I appreciate the effort.
Post by NoEd
7) Does Kerry plan to raise taxes for people earning
Post by Last2Know
less than 200,000 per year?
In a typical class warfare move he states he will raise taxes on those
making more than $200,000. And if there is additional money extorted, he
will use the money to pay for increased healthcare spending.
I don't see this description of a policy as class warfare.
The Bush admin and Republican Congress introduced a number
of tax cuts over the last four years that had concentrated
benefits for high income and wealthy people.
What is wealthy?
For example, people who have more than $1,000,000 to pass on
as an inheritance. People who get a large proportion of
their income as stock dividends also tend to be wealthy.
Post by NoEd
Beside, they are paying nearlly all the taxes, so who else
would benefit from a tax cut?
I didn't complain that the rich benefit from a tax
cut. I responded to your claim that reversing
the effect of the Bush tax cut for the rich amounts
to a kind of persecution of the rich. By that logic,
they were then also persecuted under previous
administrations.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
These included
changes to the tax rates, lowering of taxes on dividends,
and eliminating taxes on inheritances over $1,000,000
(the amount under that was previously scheduled to be
tax free during the time period affected by the legislative
change). At the same time, we went from a budget surplus
to a severe budget deficit that will get worse in the
future as a greater proportion of the workforce hits
retirement age. Bush and the Repub Congress reduced
revenues and increased spending on both Defense and Domestic
programs resulting in a lot of budget strain. This is a repeat
of what last happened under Regan and the Dem Congress of the 1980s.
It should be clear to both responsible Dems and Repubs that we
need to either increase revenues or reduce spending. Kerry is
at least saying how he will increase revenues and I support
your implied criticism that he is not specific enough.
We can increase revenues by reducing taxes. It happened under Reagan.
That's a myth propagated by supply side kooks. It was
predicted to work and failed miserably under Reagan, leading
Reagan himself to sign off on a tax increase. The claim has
been tested again and failed again under Bush.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Bush has not communicated to the voters what he
will do to either reduce spending or increase revenue
(if it is buried in fine print on his website somewhere
basically none of the voters or the media have picked
up on it). Don't you think that voters have a right
to understand what policies they are voting for with
these candidate? Isn't it wrong for them to believe
that he will not increase taxes and also not touch
any spending programs that they care about? In this
sense, Bush is running on a bigger fiction than Kerry.
Yes he has. He will not increase taxes thereby increasing revenue. Reread
http://www.georgewbush.com/.
I'm saying that either he will increase taxes *or* he will
slash program, *or* he will balloon the debt to new
levels. And I'm also saying that he has a responsibility
to tell the voters which one its going to be and what
the details are. If he is going to slash programs, let's
hear the details.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Both of these are a disaster. Taxes are already too high and it is
immoral to have somebody else pay for another's healthcare.
Why is it immoral and how does it differ from what we
already have? We have Medicare and Medicaid. When
you work for a company and you are single then you
pay for the healthcare of people with families.
How do you expect people with a lot of healthcare
issues that limit their productivity to always
pay for their own healthcare? Do you think
any sort of societal safety net is immoral and
it should always be every person for themselves?
Why is it immoral to take anothers property?
So you are against all taxation of every type?

One thing to keep in mind is that we all make money
using the infrastructure of an economic system
that was not cost free to build and is not cost
free to maintain. Our economic system depends
on our laws/courts, and our police, and our roads,
and our post, and the education of future workers,
and the scientific/engineering technologies that
have been produced by govt. funded research, and
many other things. It isn't immoral to tax
for the upkeep of that system. It isn't immoral
to have a safety net. And it isn't immoral to
make the amount of taxation depend partly on what
people can afford to pay.
Post by NoEd
Sure we need a safety net, but Medicare and SS is not based on need.
I'm in favor of making them more need-based if that is
what you are saying.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of the
healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp. less direct
spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs. Healthcare is not a
right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required
to pay for your own private security force? How
about defense? Why am I required to pay taxes to
support sending cruise missles hither and thither and
having my neighbors get blown up by suicide bombers
in Iraq?
Policing is a function of government as is national defense. Bad example.
Why is it bad example? What exactly defines policing as
a function of government and excludes contributing to
the medical well being of the citizens? I'm not actually
in favor of a national health service but I think the
question is a legitimate one.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
1) Does the level of U.S. National Debt matter?
Post by Last2Know
Are there any consequences to making the debt too large? What are
those consequences?
Of course it matters, but its current size is not a problem.
The current size is growing every year and projected to
grow faster in the future. You didn't answer my question
about what the consequences are. Without analyzing that
we can't really know that even the current size isn't
a problem. Just because things haven't collapsed yet
doesn't mean we haven't set processes in motion that
will have bad consequences. Why exactly do you think
we can count on Far East banks wanting to hold more and
more U.S. govt. bonds in the future? Surely the
attractiveness of those bonds depends on interest rates
in other countries, that our govt. has no control
over. What do you think will happen to our ability
to continue borrowing when Japan and/or China decide
that fighting inflation instead of pumping growth is
their current fiscal priority?
The solution is tocut spending and reduce taxes. Society is way overtaxed.
Simple but not easy.
This sort of voodoo economics has been debunked time and again
by professional economists. It just doesn't work. It would
be great if it did, but sadly, it's a right wing fantasy.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Interest
rates were at record lows not to long ago. The solution is to freeze
social and pork barrel spending and grow out of the debt.
I bet just about everybody, no matter what their political
leanings, would profess themselves to be against "pork
barrel spending". The Bush administration has shown
itself to have absolutely no inclination to fight spending
of any type, and it sounds like his platform for the
next four years offers lots of new spending proposals.
I agree he spends too much, buy Kerry is a left wing radical, so he is no
solution.
Republican propaganda says that Repubs spend less and are better
for employment and the stock market. The real historical record
shows the reverse, that Dems spend less and are better for
employment and the stock market. I'm not a Repub or a Dem,
but that tired stereotype doesn't hold any water with me.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
2) Are there any expenditures in the Federal budget that help people
other than beneficiaries of social security, medicare, and social
programs for the poor?
If there is, they need to be eliminated.
So you want to eliminate defense spending, spending for
highway maintenance, spending on scientific research, etc?
Defense no. We have too many highways. And yes, most scientific research is
wasted money.
It's a lot easier to see how keeping up roads and scientific
research help your life out than those B-1 bombers that Zell
Miller was yelling about. The Internet that we are using
for example, was a product of govt. research.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised while
maintaining levels of expenditure for things like defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised".
Social security payments that keep pace with inflation is
an example of a big part of the Federal budget that has
been promised. You know that we have a graduated income
tax rate, but we have a non-graduated payroll tax rate that
kicks in for all salaried people before income/withholding
tax even applies. We take the same 7.6% from each person
and also from their employer no matter what their income
or means and we tell them that this is mostly for their future
social security payments. The govt. could cancel those
future payments, but then it would have lied to all those
people and taken money from them by force on false pretenses.
The President laid out a plan for SS. Alan Greenspan has indicated that
"promised" payments cannot be maintained.
Neutral analysts have said that Bush's numbers don't add up
on this topic. Greenspan's comments are partly taking
Bush's tax cuts into account.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
6) Does the current financial balance of the U.S. govt.
Post by Last2Know
depend in any important way on the willingness of foreign creditors to
lend the govt. money? If so, what is the relationship of this
willingness to the levels of govt. debt and spending?
They are willing because the US debt is risk free. They are only
willing because it is to their advantage.
But the U.S. debt isn't really risk free, even if we
assume the govt. will pay the promised amount, because
the value of the U.S. currency can decline dramatically
against other currencies. When the govt., in effect,
prints more money by putting dollars into circulation
(while at the same time there is a large and growing
U.S. current accounts deficit with our trading partners)
we devalue the fundamentals of the currency. Why would
I want to buy a 30 year U.S. Treasury note when I
think I will get paid back in less valuable currency
in the future? If I'm a foreign lender, that is a
very serious question. So the rate at which the govt.
can borrow is very influenced by the future perception
of inflation relative to the currency and that depends
in part on how much we need to borrow in the future.
Nothing is absolutely risk free, but for all practical purposes it is risk
free.
You missed my point above. A dollar denominated interest bearing
security isn't risk free if the currency declines or inflation
is factored in.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
What must be done is that social and pork barrel spending needs to be
mostly eliminated. The government has taken on roles it was never
intended to take.
One place where we differ is that it is obvious to
me that a second Bush administration with a Republican
Congress is going to lead to more and worse spending
by the govt. They spend in all sorts of indirect
ways as well. For example by allowing corporations
to pollute more and by selling them public resources
at below market cost. They also work hard to make
the bureaucracy less efficient by basically firing
every whistle blower who goes public with a story
about violations of the public trust in their dept.
To me, the Bush administration has established
a clear pattern of always placing short term
political interests ahead of the broader public
good.
Kerry would be worse on all counts. You have to look where the source of
the solutions will most likely come. Bush over Kerry is a no brainer.
Over half of the Bush voters in the upcoming election are going
to be Evangelical Christians. Bush owes those people; they
are his constituency. The "solutions" for them may not be
palatable to others with different beliefs.
solutions" for them may not be
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Finally, you cannot have wealth without rich people.
This is one of those dirty little secrets the left doesn't want to
acknowledge.
This is silly hyperbole. Nobody I know is working
to eliminate wealth or rich people. Also, being
wealthy is less desirable if their is more crime
and vagrancy, roads are falling apart, the environment
is polluted, etc.
No its not. By taxing the "rich" you are doing just that: punishing those
who are most productive and who provide the wealth to support everything.
You sound like you are against all taxes. If you are just
trying to say that it is wrong to have too much taxes or
a tax rate that is too graduated then I agree.
But I don't see that Kerry has proposed such extremes.
Post by NoEd
Are there more vagrancy, crime etc in Beverly Hills or Fort Wayne, Indiana?
Poverty and lack of good economic opportunities are correlated
with crime. That is part of my point.
Post by NoEd
Is the environment better in the US or in Bangledesh or Mexico?
What are you saying? That the U.S. should emulate the lack of
environmental standards in Bangladesh and Mexico so we can
also emulate their economy's. You seem to be arguing against
your man Bush here.
Post by NoEd
Your statements are silly. Like rich versus polluted environment could be
opposites.
They are not opposites and I didn't imply as much.
In fact, what I'm saying is that a clean environment
is one measure of our wealth that we should not piss away.
Post by NoEd
Lets see if we agree on something easy. The Dept. of Education
needs be eliminated Do you agree?
I agree that it is a bad dept. Just saying "elminiate"
it irresponsible however. The Federal govt. does have
a role to play in trying to see to it that every child
has an opportunity to get a high quality education.
NoEd
2004-09-06 03:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Let me help you here.
Thanks for responding. I'm going to criticize
some of your answers, but I appreciate the effort.
Post by NoEd
7) Does Kerry plan to raise taxes for people earning
Post by Last2Know
less than 200,000 per year?
In a typical class warfare move he states he will raise taxes on those
making more than $200,000. And if there is additional money extorted, he
will use the money to pay for increased healthcare spending.
I don't see this description of a policy as class warfare.
The Bush admin and Republican Congress introduced a number
of tax cuts over the last four years that had concentrated
benefits for high income and wealthy people.
What is wealthy?
For example, people who have more than $1,000,000 to pass on
as an inheritance. People who get a large proportion of
their income as stock dividends also tend to be wealthy.
Post by NoEd
Beside, they are paying nearlly all the taxes, so who else
would benefit from a tax cut?
I didn't complain that the rich benefit from a tax
cut. I responded to your claim that reversing
the effect of the Bush tax cut for the rich amounts
to a kind of persecution of the rich. By that logic,
they were then also persecuted under previous
administrations.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
These included
changes to the tax rates, lowering of taxes on dividends,
and eliminating taxes on inheritances over $1,000,000
(the amount under that was previously scheduled to be
tax free during the time period affected by the legislative
change). At the same time, we went from a budget surplus
to a severe budget deficit that will get worse in the
future as a greater proportion of the workforce hits
retirement age. Bush and the Repub Congress reduced
revenues and increased spending on both Defense and Domestic
programs resulting in a lot of budget strain. This is a repeat
of what last happened under Regan and the Dem Congress of the 1980s.
It should be clear to both responsible Dems and Repubs that we
need to either increase revenues or reduce spending. Kerry is
at least saying how he will increase revenues and I support
your implied criticism that he is not specific enough.
We can increase revenues by reducing taxes. It happened under Reagan.
That's a myth propagated by supply side kooks. It was
predicted to work and failed miserably under Reagan, leading
Reagan himself to sign off on a tax increase. The claim has
been tested again and failed again under Bush.
Then then a tax rate of 100% will yield the highest take for the government?
But you and I both know that is not true. By common sense there is an
optimal tax rate that will generate the most tax revenue. We are far above
that rate, and yes supply side worked under Reagan. I knew I could find
where we differed.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Bush has not communicated to the voters what he
will do to either reduce spending or increase revenue
(if it is buried in fine print on his website somewhere
basically none of the voters or the media have picked
up on it). Don't you think that voters have a right
to understand what policies they are voting for with
these candidate? Isn't it wrong for them to believe
that he will not increase taxes and also not touch
any spending programs that they care about? In this
sense, Bush is running on a bigger fiction than Kerry.
Yes he has. He will not increase taxes thereby increasing revenue.
Reread
http://www.georgewbush.com/.
I'm saying that either he will increase taxes *or* he will
slash program, *or* he will balloon the debt to new
levels. And I'm also saying that he has a responsibility
to tell the voters which one its going to be and what
the details are. If he is going to slash programs, let's
hear the details.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Both of these are a disaster. Taxes are already too high and it is
immoral to have somebody else pay for another's healthcare.
Why is it immoral and how does it differ from what we
already have? We have Medicare and Medicaid. When
you work for a company and you are single then you
pay for the healthcare of people with families.
How do you expect people with a lot of healthcare
issues that limit their productivity to always
pay for their own healthcare? Do you think
any sort of societal safety net is immoral and
it should always be every person for themselves?
Why is it immoral to take anothers property?
So you are against all taxation of every type?
Except for those areas that are the proper role of government.
Post by Last2Know
One thing to keep in mind is that we all make money
using the infrastructure of an economic system
that was not cost free to build and is not cost
free to maintain. Our economic system depends
on our laws/courts, and our police, and our roads,
and our post, and the education of future workers,
and the scientific/engineering technologies that
have been produced by govt. funded research, and
many other things. It isn't immoral to tax
for the upkeep of that system. It isn't immoral
to have a safety net. And it isn't immoral to
make the amount of taxation depend partly on what
people can afford to pay.
Post by NoEd
Sure we need a safety net, but Medicare and SS is not based on need.
I'm in favor of making them more need-based if that is
Clearly that is what I am saying.
Post by Last2Know
what you are saying.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of the
healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp. less direct
spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs. Healthcare is not a
right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required
to pay for your own private security force? How
about defense? Why am I required to pay taxes to
support sending cruise missles hither and thither and
having my neighbors get blown up by suicide bombers
in Iraq?
Policing is a function of government as is national defense. Bad example.
Why is it bad example? What exactly defines policing as
a function of government and excludes contributing to
the medical well being of the citizens? I'm not actually
in favor of a national health service but I think the
question is a legitimate one.
Role of government. Don't get stupid on me.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
1) Does the level of U.S. National Debt matter?
Post by Last2Know
Are there any consequences to making the debt too large? What are
those consequences?
Of course it matters, but its current size is not a problem.
The current size is growing every year and projected to
grow faster in the future. You didn't answer my question
about what the consequences are. Without analyzing that
we can't really know that even the current size isn't
a problem. Just because things haven't collapsed yet
doesn't mean we haven't set processes in motion that
will have bad consequences. Why exactly do you think
we can count on Far East banks wanting to hold more and
more U.S. govt. bonds in the future? Surely the
attractiveness of those bonds depends on interest rates
in other countries, that our govt. has no control
over. What do you think will happen to our ability
to continue borrowing when Japan and/or China decide
that fighting inflation instead of pumping growth is
their current fiscal priority?
The solution is tocut spending and reduce taxes. Society is way overtaxed.
Simple but not easy.
This sort of voodoo economics has been debunked time and again
by professional economists. It just doesn't work. It would
be great if it did, but sadly, it's a right wing fantasy.
Milton Friedman? Is there a tax rate too high? What is the overrall
incremental tax rate you claim is too high. 50% 60% 90% 99%. Please let me
know.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Interest
rates were at record lows not to long ago. The solution is to freeze
social and pork barrel spending and grow out of the debt.
I bet just about everybody, no matter what their political
leanings, would profess themselves to be against "pork
barrel spending". The Bush administration has shown
itself to have absolutely no inclination to fight spending
of any type, and it sounds like his platform for the
next four years offers lots of new spending proposals.
I agree he spends too much, buy Kerry is a left wing radical, so he is no
solution.
Republican propaganda says that Repubs spend less and are better
for employment and the stock market. The real historical record
shows the reverse, that Dems spend less and are better for
employment and the stock market. I'm not a Repub or a Dem,
but that tired stereotype doesn't hold any water with me.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
2) Are there any expenditures in the Federal budget that help people
other than beneficiaries of social security, medicare, and social
programs for the poor?
If there is, they need to be eliminated.
So you want to eliminate defense spending, spending for
highway maintenance, spending on scientific research, etc?
Defense no. We have too many highways. And yes, most scientific research is
wasted money.
It's a lot easier to see how keeping up roads and scientific
research help your life out than those B-1 bombers that Zell
Miller was yelling about. The Internet that we are using
for example, was a product of govt. research.
Defense again.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised while
maintaining levels of expenditure for things like defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised".
Social security payments that keep pace with inflation is
an example of a big part of the Federal budget that has
been promised. You know that we have a graduated income
tax rate, but we have a non-graduated payroll tax rate that
kicks in for all salaried people before income/withholding
tax even applies. We take the same 7.6% from each person
and also from their employer no matter what their income
or means and we tell them that this is mostly for their future
social security payments. The govt. could cancel those
future payments, but then it would have lied to all those
people and taken money from them by force on false pretenses.
The President laid out a plan for SS. Alan Greenspan has indicated that
"promised" payments cannot be maintained.
Neutral analysts have said that Bush's numbers don't add up
on this topic. Greenspan's comments are partly taking
Bush's tax cuts into account.
Please. The tax cuts are the solution.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
6) Does the current financial balance of the U.S. govt.
Post by Last2Know
depend in any important way on the willingness of foreign creditors to
lend the govt. money? If so, what is the relationship of this
willingness to the levels of govt. debt and spending?
They are willing because the US debt is risk free. They are only
willing because it is to their advantage.
But the U.S. debt isn't really risk free, even if we
assume the govt. will pay the promised amount, because
the value of the U.S. currency can decline dramatically
against other currencies. When the govt., in effect,
prints more money by putting dollars into circulation
(while at the same time there is a large and growing
U.S. current accounts deficit with our trading partners)
we devalue the fundamentals of the currency. Why would
I want to buy a 30 year U.S. Treasury note when I
think I will get paid back in less valuable currency
in the future? If I'm a foreign lender, that is a
very serious question. So the rate at which the govt.
can borrow is very influenced by the future perception
of inflation relative to the currency and that depends
in part on how much we need to borrow in the future.
Nothing is absolutely risk free, but for all practical purposes it is risk
free.
You missed my point above. A dollar denominated interest bearing
security isn't risk free if the currency declines or inflation
is factored in.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
What must be done is that social and pork barrel spending needs to be
mostly eliminated. The government has taken on roles it was never
intended to take.
One place where we differ is that it is obvious to
me that a second Bush administration with a Republican
Congress is going to lead to more and worse spending
by the govt. They spend in all sorts of indirect
ways as well. For example by allowing corporations
to pollute more and by selling them public resources
at below market cost. They also work hard to make
the bureaucracy less efficient by basically firing
every whistle blower who goes public with a story
about violations of the public trust in their dept.
To me, the Bush administration has established
a clear pattern of always placing short term
political interests ahead of the broader public
good.
Kerry would be worse on all counts. You have to look where the source of
the solutions will most likely come. Bush over Kerry is a no brainer.
Over half of the Bush voters in the upcoming election are going
to be Evangelical Christians. Bush owes those people; they
are his constituency. The "solutions" for them may not be
palatable to others with different beliefs.
solutions" for them may not be
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Finally, you cannot have wealth without rich people.
This is one of those dirty little secrets the left doesn't want to
acknowledge.
This is silly hyperbole. Nobody I know is working
to eliminate wealth or rich people. Also, being
wealthy is less desirable if their is more crime
and vagrancy, roads are falling apart, the environment
is polluted, etc.
No its not. By taxing the "rich" you are doing just that: punishing those
who are most productive and who provide the wealth to support everything.
You sound like you are against all taxes. If you are just
trying to say that it is wrong to have too much taxes or
a tax rate that is too graduated then I agree.
But I don't see that Kerry has proposed such extremes.
Post by NoEd
Are there more vagrancy, crime etc in Beverly Hills or Fort Wayne, Indiana?
Poverty and lack of good economic opportunities are correlated
with crime. That is part of my point.
Post by NoEd
Is the environment better in the US or in Bangledesh or Mexico?
What are you saying? That the U.S. should emulate the lack of
environmental standards in Bangladesh and Mexico so we can
also emulate their economy's. You seem to be arguing against
your man Bush here.
Now you're getting silly. No need to continue this conversation.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Your statements are silly. Like rich versus polluted environment could be
opposites.
They are not opposites and I didn't imply as much.
In fact, what I'm saying is that a clean environment
is one measure of our wealth that we should not piss away.
Post by NoEd
Lets see if we agree on something easy. The Dept. of Education
needs be eliminated Do you agree?
I agree that it is a bad dept. Just saying "elminiate"
it irresponsible however. The Federal govt. does have
a role to play in trying to see to it that every child
has an opportunity to get a high quality education.
No. Parents do. It is at best a local issue.


We are miles apart. I see the individual and family as the basic unit of
society. You fear freedom and wealth. I fear government. I see the
govenment as being very limited in what it can do.

You sound like a person who works as a government employee or relies on the
government.
Last2Know
2004-09-06 06:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We can increase revenues by reducing taxes. It happened under Reagan.
That's a myth propagated by supply side kooks. It was
predicted to work and failed miserably under Reagan, leading
Reagan himself to sign off on a tax increase. The claim has
been tested again and failed again under Bush.
Then then a tax rate of 100% will yield the highest take for the government?
But you and I both know that is not true.
Right. Nobody claims that.
Post by NoEd
By common sense there is an
optimal tax rate that will generate the most tax revenue.
Other things being equal.
Post by NoEd
We are far above
that rate,
What evidence do you have for this claim?
Post by NoEd
and yes supply side worked under Reagan.
It did not work to increase tax revenue.
See for instance:

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM
http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/23More.htm
http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/rushmore.html
Post by NoEd
I knew I could find
where we differed.
We probably differ in a lot of ways. But do
you really want to claim that Reaganomics
was a successful test of the Laffer Curve
Theory?
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of the
healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp. less direct
spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs. Healthcare is not a
right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required
to pay for your own private security force? How
about defense? Why am I required to pay taxes to
support sending cruise missles hither and thither and
having my neighbors get blown up by suicide bombers
in Iraq?
Policing is a function of government as is national defense. Bad example.
Why is it bad example? What exactly defines policing as
a function of government and excludes contributing to
the medical well being of the citizens? I'm not actually
in favor of a national health service but I think the
question is a legitimate one.
Role of government. Don't get stupid on me.
I don't see any argument here. You are just
restating an opinion.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
The solution is tocut spending and reduce taxes. Society is way overtaxed.
Simple but not easy.
This sort of voodoo economics has been debunked time and again
by professional economists. It just doesn't work. It would
be great if it did, but sadly, it's a right wing fantasy.
Milton Friedman? Is there a tax rate too high? What is the overrall
incremental tax rate you claim is too high. 50% 60% 90% 99%. Please let me
know.
According to what criteria? Moral? Economic?
Give me a context for your question.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
So you want to eliminate defense spending, spending for
highway maintenance, spending on scientific research, etc?
Defense no. We have too many highways. And yes, most scientific research is
wasted money.
It's a lot easier to see how keeping up roads and scientific
research help your life out than those B-1 bombers that Zell
Miller was yelling about. The Internet that we are using
for example, was a product of govt. research.
Defense again.
The original Internet research was funded through DARPA
but I don't see how that is germane to the question.
What about NIH funding that leads to medical breakthroughs.
Is that less valuable somehow because it didn't come through
DARPA?
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised while
maintaining levels of expenditure for things like defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with
inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised". Social
security payments that keep pace with inflation is an example of a
big part of the Federal budget that has been promised. You know
that we have a graduated income tax rate, but we have a non-graduated
payroll tax rate that kicks in for all salaried people before
income/withholding tax even applies. We take the same 7.6% from
each person and also from their employer no matter what their income
or means and we tell them that this is mostly for their future social
security payments. The govt. could cancel those future payments,
but then it would have lied to all those people and taken money from
them by force on false pretenses.
The President laid out a plan for SS. Alan Greenspan has indicated
that "promised" payments cannot be maintained.
Neutral analysts have said that Bush's numbers don't add up on this
topic. Greenspan's comments are partly taking Bush's tax cuts into
account.
Please. The tax cuts are the solution.
You keep restating this opinion with any evidence or argument,
as though it is just a matter of religious faith.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Lets see if we agree on something easy. The Dept. of Education needs
be eliminated Do you agree?
I agree that it is a bad dept. Just saying "elminiate" it
irresponsible however. The Federal govt. does have a role to play in
trying to see to it that every child has an opportunity to get a high
quality education.
No. Parents do. It is at best a local issue.
Lots of children are born to terrible, irresponsible parents
in broken homes. Are you saying that the govt. should
ignore them?
Post by NoEd
We are miles apart. I see the individual and family as the basic unit
of society. You fear freedom and wealth.
Bullshit.
Post by NoEd
I fear government. I see the
govenment as being very limited in what it can do.
Then your philosophy is very different from G.W. Bush
who apparently wants to use our armed forces to teach
the world about democracy.
Post by NoEd
You sound like a person who works as a government employee or relies on
the government.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. in some way.
I am not a govt. employee, but don't see why my
arguments would be any less valid if I was.
NoEd
2004-09-06 15:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We can increase revenues by reducing taxes. It happened under Reagan.
That's a myth propagated by supply side kooks. It was
predicted to work and failed miserably under Reagan, leading
Reagan himself to sign off on a tax increase. The claim has
been tested again and failed again under Bush.
Then then a tax rate of 100% will yield the highest take for the government?
But you and I both know that is not true.
Right. Nobody claims that.
Post by NoEd
By common sense there is an
optimal tax rate that will generate the most tax revenue.
Other things being equal.
What other things?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are far above
that rate,
What evidence do you have for this claim?
The fact that supply side economics works.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
and yes supply side worked under Reagan.
It did not work to increase tax revenue.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM
http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/23More.htm
http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/rushmore.html
Try these:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pdtx64.html

Just in case you don't go to these pages:

Politicians are expected to repeat the mantra, "Reagan tax cuts were
responsible for declining revenues and soaring deficits in the 1980s," but
no such thing occurred, according to budget analysts.

a.. Receipts from individual income taxes rose to $446 billion in fiscal
1989 -- President Reagan's last budget -- from $286 billion in fiscal 1981,
the year Reagan began to slash personal tax rates -- a 56 percent increase.

b.. Annualized, tax receipts grew faster than that period's 4 percent
inflation.

c.. During the same period, federal spending rose from $678 billion to
$1.143 trillion -- a 69 percent increase.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
I knew I could find
where we differed.
We probably differ in a lot of ways. But do
you really want to claim that Reaganomics
was a successful test of the Laffer Curve
Theory?
Yes. See above. Do you really accept that higher taxes is beneficial?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of the
healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp. less direct
spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs. Healthcare is not a
right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required
to pay for your own private security force? How
about defense? Why am I required to pay taxes to
support sending cruise missles hither and thither and
having my neighbors get blown up by suicide bombers
in Iraq?
Policing is a function of government as is national defense. Bad example.
Why is it bad example? What exactly defines policing as
a function of government and excludes contributing to
the medical well being of the citizens? I'm not actually
in favor of a national health service but I think the
question is a legitimate one.
Role of government. Don't get stupid on me.
I don't see any argument here. You are just
restating an opinion.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
The solution is tocut spending and reduce taxes. Society is way overtaxed.
Simple but not easy.
This sort of voodoo economics has been debunked time and again
by professional economists. It just doesn't work. It would
be great if it did, but sadly, it's a right wing fantasy.
Milton Friedman? Is there a tax rate too high? What is the overrall
incremental tax rate you claim is too high. 50% 60% 90% 99%. Please let me
know.
According to what criteria? Moral? Economic?
Give me a context for your question.
I gave you a "professional" economist. But you didn't answer the question:
what is a too high incremental tax rate?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
So you want to eliminate defense spending, spending for
highway maintenance, spending on scientific research, etc?
Defense no. We have too many highways. And yes, most scientific
research
is
wasted money.
It's a lot easier to see how keeping up roads and scientific
research help your life out than those B-1 bombers that Zell
Miller was yelling about. The Internet that we are using
for example, was a product of govt. research.
Defense again.
The original Internet research was funded through DARPA
but I don't see how that is germane to the question.
What about NIH funding that leads to medical breakthroughs.
Is that less valuable somehow because it didn't come through
DARPA?
Most NIH funding is pissed away. It should be tabled and a new model should
be created. It is far too political.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised while
maintaining levels of expenditure for things like defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised". Social
security payments that keep pace with inflation is an example of a
big part of the Federal budget that has been promised. You know
that we have a graduated income tax rate, but we have a non-graduated
payroll tax rate that kicks in for all salaried people before
income/withholding tax even applies. We take the same 7.6% from
each person and also from their employer no matter what their income
or means and we tell them that this is mostly for their future social
security payments. The govt. could cancel those future payments,
but then it would have lied to all those people and taken money from
them by force on false pretenses.
The President laid out a plan for SS. Alan Greenspan has indicated
that "promised" payments cannot be maintained.
Neutral analysts have said that Bush's numbers don't add up on this
topic. Greenspan's comments are partly taking Bush's tax cuts into
account.
Please. The tax cuts are the solution.
You keep restating this opinion with any evidence or argument,
as though it is just a matter of religious faith.
See above. Do I have to prove that letting peope keep the money they earned
is moral?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Lets see if we agree on something easy. The Dept. of Education needs
be eliminated Do you agree?
I agree that it is a bad dept. Just saying "elminiate" it
irresponsible however. The Federal govt. does have a role to play in
trying to see to it that every child has an opportunity to get a high
quality education.
No. Parents do. It is at best a local issue.
Lots of children are born to terrible, irresponsible parents
in broken homes. Are you saying that the govt. should
ignore them?
Direct federal yes. But these is an extreme cases. You know we are not
talking about the extreme cases. May be you can help me out, what should
the government do when children are born to terrible, irresponsible parents
in broken homes?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are miles apart. I see the individual and family as the basic unit
of society. You fear freedom and wealth.
Bullshit.
You think taxing the rich is the solution. I don't. Its not BS.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
I fear government. I see the
govenment as being very limited in what it can do.
Then your philosophy is very different from G.W. Bush
who apparently wants to use our armed forces to teach
the world about democracy.
Really. Prove it. I didn't here that at all.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
You sound like a person who works as a government employee or relies on
the government.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. in some way.
I am not a govt. employee, but don't see why my
arguments would be any less valid if I was.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. Sure. Defense, Courts, Police,
Fire. Your statement means nothing.

It makes a difference. Perspective is everything. There is no doubt your
face is deep in the public trough.


Your basic arguement is to tax the rich so money will be avaliable for
politically motivated alternatives, e.g. save the whales, help the children,
build a new road, fund research, etc. That philosphy is both immoral and,
worse, bankrupt in its effect.

My arguement is simple: taxes kill economies, regulations kill economies,
wealth is best for the environment, governement should be limited to those
functions it best handles, taxes to pay for those function not best provided
by government are immoral, parents should have the option of sending there
children to any school.
Last2Know
2004-09-06 17:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We can increase revenues by reducing taxes. It happened under Reagan.
That's a myth propagated by supply side kooks. It was
predicted to work and failed miserably under Reagan, leading
Reagan himself to sign off on a tax increase. The claim has
been tested again and failed again under Bush.
Then then a tax rate of 100% will yield the highest take for the government?
But you and I both know that is not true.
Right. Nobody claims that.
Post by NoEd
By common sense there is an
optimal tax rate that will generate the most tax revenue.
Other things being equal.
What other things?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are far above
that rate,
What evidence do you have for this claim?
The fact that supply side economics works.
It hasn't worked. The claim that it has is
based on twisted readings of the facts by
self-interested right-wing groups. Mainstream
economists are clear on the fact that it didn't
work and also on why it didn't work.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
and yes supply side worked under Reagan.
It did not work to increase tax revenue.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM
http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/23More.htm
http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/rushmore.html
Quoting from the third link above:


If supply-siders were right, the Reagan tax cut would have been followed
by spikes in how much people saved, how many hours they worked, and how
productive they were. But none of these spikes happened. Savings rates
actually declined during Reagan's term, in spite of tax incentives for
saving.4 People did not work longer hours in response to tax cuts - a
finding replicated in major independent studies from the Brookings
Institute, the Federal Reserve, and the University of California. And
productivity growth rates remained sluggish. (Indeed, the numbers from
1951 and 1995 show the opposite of what supply-side theory predicts:
productivity growth dropped pretty much in lockstep with marginal tax
rates. Productivity growth took off in the mid-1990s - after Clinton's
tax hike. I'm not arguing for cause and effect - I think it was
coincidence - but it does show that supply-side thinking is too simple
to fit the real world.)

But what about the other key supply-side claim: that Reagan's tax cut
actually increased federal tax revenues? A close look at the data shows
that it didn't. Instead, what boosted Federal tax revenues during the
1980's was not individual income taxes but payroll taxes (the tax taken
out of your paycheck to pay for Social Security and Medicare). What
caused the 4.3% average growth in payroll tax revenues was not a tax cut
but a big tax increase, the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Try
explaining that with supply-side theory.

Similarly, corporate tax revenues plummeted after Reagan's tax cut - in
contradiction to the "cut taxes, increase revenue" ideal. Corporate tax
revenue surged only after the 1986 tax-reform law, which got rid of a
lot of tax-sheltering opportunities. This broadened the base of what
gets taxed, and thus allowed Congress to reduce the top corporate tax
rate without losing revenues. But for a number of corporations, the act
did not lower taxes. In fact, it limited depreciation deductions,
eliminated the investment tax credit, and strengthened the "alternative
minimum tax." Popular tax-sheltering approaches suddenly became useless
or illegal.


Do you dispute any of the above? Is so, based on what?
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
I knew I could find
where we differed.
We probably differ in a lot of ways. But do you really want to claim
that Reaganomics was a successful test of the Laffer Curve Theory?
Yes. See above. Do you really accept that higher taxes is beneficial?
See the notes above. Reaganomics was at best a misapplication of
the Laffer Curve Theory that failed.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
We need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of
the healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp. less
direct spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs. Healthcare
is not a right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required to pay for
your own private security force? How about defense? Why am I
required to pay taxes to support sending cruise missles hither and
thither and having my neighbors get blown up by suicide bombers in
Iraq?
Policing is a function of government as is national defense. Bad example.
Why is it bad example? What exactly defines policing as a function of
government and excludes contributing to the medical well being of the
citizens? I'm not actually in favor of a national health service
but I think the question is a legitimate one.
Role of government. Don't get stupid on me.
I don't see any argument here. You are just restating an opinion.
I still don't see a response.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
The solution is tocut spending and reduce taxes. Society is way overtaxed.
Simple but not easy.
This sort of voodoo economics has been debunked time and again by
professional economists. It just doesn't work. It would be great if
it did, but sadly, it's a right wing fantasy.
Milton Friedman? Is there a tax rate too high? What is the overrall
incremental tax rate you claim is too high. 50% 60% 90% 99%. Please let me
know.
According to what criteria? Moral? Economic? Give me a context for
your question.
I gave you a "professional" economist.
Milton Friedman doesn't support supply-siders. I'm not sure
what you are driving at.
Post by NoEd
But you didn't answer the
question: what is a too high incremental tax rate?
I'm not ducking. I'm asking what basis you want me to use for that
question? Are you asking for my gut feeling about the highest
incremental tax rate based purely on concepts of fairness?
I'll say 43%. If you are asking based on the Laffer Curve,
I think it is a much higher number than that, at least if it kicks
in at a high enough threshold.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
So you want to eliminate defense spending, spending for highway
maintenance, spending on scientific research, etc?
Defense no. We have too many highways. And yes, most scientific
research
is
wasted money.
It's a lot easier to see how keeping up roads and scientific research
help your life out than those B-1 bombers that Zell Miller was
yelling about. The Internet that we are using for example, was a
product of govt. research.
Defense again.
The original Internet research was funded through DARPA but I don't see
how that is germane to the question. What about NIH funding that leads
to medical breakthroughs. Is that less valuable somehow because it
didn't come through DARPA?
Most NIH funding is pissed away. It should be tabled and a new model
should be created. It is far too political.
What's your basis for claiming that most NIH funding is pissed
away? What's your definition of pissed away? What do
you mean by it being political? Grants are based on scientific
peer review by people unaffiliated with the applicant.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised while
maintaining levels of expenditure for things like defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised". Social
security payments that keep pace with inflation is an example of a
big part of the Federal budget that has been promised. You know
that we have a graduated income tax rate, but we have a
non-graduated payroll tax rate that kicks in for all salaried
people before income/withholding tax even applies. We take the
same 7.6% from each person and also from their employer no matter
what their income or means and we tell them that this is mostly for
their future social security payments. The govt. could cancel
those future payments, but then it would have lied to all those
people and taken money from them by force on false pretenses.
The President laid out a plan for SS. Alan Greenspan has indicated
that "promised" payments cannot be maintained.
Neutral analysts have said that Bush's numbers don't add up on this
topic. Greenspan's comments are partly taking Bush's tax cuts into
account.
Please. The tax cuts are the solution.
You keep restating this opinion with any evidence or argument, as
though it is just a matter of religious faith.
See above. Do I have to prove that letting peope keep the money they
earned is moral?
I'd like it if you would follow the argument more closely
and make it clear where you are making a moral argument and
where you are making a practical one. You started above by
claiming tax cuts could fix the problem of future unbalances
in the social security system, and when I question you about
it you are responding with a vague moral claim against all
taxation.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Lets see if we agree on something easy. The Dept. of Education
needs be eliminated Do you agree?
I agree that it is a bad dept. Just saying "elminiate" it
irresponsible however. The Federal govt. does have a role to play in
trying to see to it that every child has an opportunity to get a high
quality education.
No. Parents do. It is at best a local issue.
Lots of children are born to terrible, irresponsible parents in broken
homes. Are you saying that the govt. should ignore them?
Direct federal yes. But these is an extreme cases. You know we are not
talking about the extreme cases. May be you can help me out, what
should the government do when children are born to terrible,
irresponsible parents in broken homes?
One thing the govt. tries to do is make sure they go to grade
school. Another thing it tries to do is make sure those schools
meet some minimal standards. A third thing the dept. of education
does is offer loans to pay for post-grade school education for
applicants who qualify based on both achievement and need.
So which of those things are you against and what do you
want to replace them with. It sounds like you are saying
that parents do those things in most all cases and the cases
where they don't are too sporadic for the govt. to worry about.
Is that your position?
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are miles apart. I see the individual and family as the basic unit
of society. You fear freedom and wealth.
Bullshit.
You think taxing the rich is the solution. I don't. Its not BS.
I don't know what "taxing the rich is the solution" means.
I do know you said "You fear freedom and wealth" and that
is bullshit.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
I fear government. I see the
govenment as being very limited in what it can do.
Then your philosophy is very different from G.W. Bush who apparently
wants to use our armed forces to teach the world about democracy.
Really. Prove it. I didn't here that at all.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html

You can skip the fluff at the top and read down to the last
eight paragraphs.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
You sound like a person who works as a government employee or relies
on the government.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. in some way. I am not a govt.
employee, but don't see why my arguments would be any less valid if I
was.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. Sure. Defense, Courts, Police,
Fire. Your statement means nothing.
It makes a difference. Perspective is everything. There is no doubt
your face is deep in the public trough.
So you're saying that anybody who actually works on Defense, Courts,
Police, Fire, etc. can't voice valid arguments in a debate about
taxes because their professional affiliation makes their point
of view biased and suspect?? By the same logic, all politicians
therefore are suspect and shouldn't speak on these topics.
Post by NoEd
Your basic arguement is to tax the rich so money will be avaliable for
politically motivated alternatives, e.g. save the whales, help the
children, build a new road, fund research, etc.
"Save the whales" is some sort of anti-liberal bogeyman that has
nothing to do with govt. and doesn't belong in this discussion.
Now please tell me why helping children, building and maintaining
roads, and funding research count as "politically motivated"
alternatives why defense spending and corporate welfare do
not.
Post by NoEd
That philosphy is both
immoral and, worse, bankrupt in its effect.
You just spout moral non-sequiturs at every gap in the
text without a shred of reason or coherency.
You're like a big gas balloon with a leak, darting around
in the wind.
Post by NoEd
My arguement is simple: taxes kill economies, regulations kill
economies,
It's a matter of getting the right proportions, and also
a matter of balancing fairness and efficiency. Those
are not simple matters.
Post by NoEd
wealth is best for the environment
Meaning, according to you, that lower marginal tax
rates will help avoid pollution?? You've lost
me here.
Post by NoEd
governement should be
limited to those functions it best handles
Agree, if what you mean by that is the government
should only handle functions where it is the best
candidate to do so.
Post by NoEd
taxes to pay for those
function not best provided by government are immoral, parents should
have the option of sending there children to any school.
I support school vouchers in principle, but not as a ruse
to change the standards of publicly supported curriculum
in favor of religious curriculum or to take money out of
needy areas, or to provide a perk to people who don't
need it.
NoEd
2004-09-06 18:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We can increase revenues by reducing taxes. It happened under Reagan.
That's a myth propagated by supply side kooks. It was
predicted to work and failed miserably under Reagan, leading
Reagan himself to sign off on a tax increase. The claim has
been tested again and failed again under Bush.
Then then a tax rate of 100% will yield the highest take for the government?
But you and I both know that is not true.
Right. Nobody claims that.
Post by NoEd
By common sense there is an
optimal tax rate that will generate the most tax revenue.
Other things being equal.
What other things?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are far above
that rate,
What evidence do you have for this claim?
The fact that supply side economics works.
It hasn't worked. The claim that it has is
based on twisted readings of the facts by
self-interested right-wing groups. Mainstream
economists are clear on the fact that it didn't
work and also on why it didn't work.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
and yes supply side worked under Reagan.
It did not work to increase tax revenue.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM
http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/23More.htm
http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/rushmore.html
If supply-siders were right, the Reagan tax cut would have been followed
by spikes in how much people saved,
Not necessarily. Do you consider investment in the stock market saving?
.


how many hours they worked, and how
Post by Last2Know
productive they were.
Not necessarily. From the Cato study:

Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew
much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years

But none of these spikes happened. Savings rates
Post by Last2Know
actually declined during Reagan's term, in spite of tax incentives for
saving.4 People did not work longer hours in response to tax cuts - a
finding replicated in major independent studies from the Brookings
Institute, the Federal Reserve, and the University of California. And
productivity growth rates remained sluggish. (Indeed, the numbers from
productivity growth dropped pretty much in lockstep with marginal tax
rates. Productivity growth took off in the mid-1990s - after Clinton's
tax hike. I'm not arguing for cause and effect - I think it was
coincidence - but it does show that supply-side thinking is too simple
to fit the real world.)
From the Cato report:

a.. Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the
past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity
growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as
shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but
much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has
increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst
presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.
Post by Last2Know
But what about the other key supply-side claim: that Reagan's tax cut
actually increased federal tax revenues? A close look at the data shows
that it didn't. Instead, what boosted Federal tax revenues during the
1980's was not individual income taxes but payroll taxes (the tax taken
out of your paycheck to pay for Social Security and Medicare). What
caused the 4.3% average growth in payroll tax revenues was not a tax cut
but a big tax increase, the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Try
explaining that with supply-side theory.
I already proved this false. But here is another Cato quote:

a.. Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s
from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal
revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax
revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.


No matter how bad you want to believe, captialism is based on incentives.
The more of the money the earners of the money can keep, the more they will
work. Very simple, very old, and very true.
Post by Last2Know
Similarly, corporate tax revenues plummeted after Reagan's tax cut - in
contradiction to the "cut taxes, increase revenue" ideal. Corporate tax
revenue surged only after the 1986 tax-reform law, which got rid of a
lot of tax-sheltering opportunities. This broadened the base of what
gets taxed, and thus allowed Congress to reduce the top corporate tax
rate without losing revenues. But for a number of corporations, the act
did not lower taxes. In fact, it limited depreciation deductions,
eliminated the investment tax credit, and strengthened the "alternative
minimum tax." Popular tax-sheltering approaches suddenly became useless
or illegal.
Do you dispute any of the above? Is so, based on what?
See my comments.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
I knew I could find
where we differed.
We probably differ in a lot of ways. But do you really want to claim
that Reaganomics was a successful test of the Laffer Curve Theory?
Yes. See above. Do you really accept that higher taxes is beneficial?
See the notes above. Reaganomics was at best a misapplication of
the Laffer Curve Theory that failed.
It did not.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
We need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of
the healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp. less
direct spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs. Healthcare
is not a right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required to pay for
your own private security force? How about defense? Why am I
required to pay taxes to support sending cruise missles hither and
thither and having my neighbors get blown up by suicide bombers in
Iraq?
Policing is a function of government as is national defense. Bad example.
Why is it bad example? What exactly defines policing as a function of
government and excludes contributing to the medical well being of the
citizens? I'm not actually in favor of a national health service
but I think the question is a legitimate one.
Role of government. Don't get stupid on me.
I don't see any argument here. You are just restating an opinion.
I still don't see a response.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
The solution is tocut spending and reduce taxes. Society is way overtaxed.
Simple but not easy.
This sort of voodoo economics has been debunked time and again by
professional economists. It just doesn't work. It would be great if
it did, but sadly, it's a right wing fantasy.
Milton Friedman? Is there a tax rate too high? What is the overrall
incremental tax rate you claim is too high. 50% 60% 90% 99%. Please let me
know.
According to what criteria? Moral? Economic? Give me a context for
your question.
I gave you a "professional" economist.
Milton Friedman doesn't support supply-siders. I'm not sure
what you are driving at.
Milton Friedman doesn't support high taxes. Please show where he supports
high taxes. I worked with Reagan.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
But you didn't answer the
question: what is a too high incremental tax rate?
I'm not ducking. I'm asking what basis you want me to use for that
question? Are you asking for my gut feeling about the highest
incremental tax rate based purely on concepts of fairness?
I'll say 43%. If you are asking based on the Laffer Curve,
I think it is a much higher number than that, at least if it kicks
in at a high enough threshold.
Between state, local, federal, SS, Medicare, and other taxes, the
incremental rate is higher than 43%.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
So you want to eliminate defense spending, spending for highway
maintenance, spending on scientific research, etc?
Defense no. We have too many highways. And yes, most scientific
research
is
wasted money.
It's a lot easier to see how keeping up roads and scientific research
help your life out than those B-1 bombers that Zell Miller was
yelling about. The Internet that we are using for example, was a
product of govt. research.
Defense again.
The original Internet research was funded through DARPA but I don't see
how that is germane to the question. What about NIH funding that leads
to medical breakthroughs. Is that less valuable somehow because it
didn't come through DARPA?
Most NIH funding is pissed away. It should be tabled and a new model
should be created. It is far too political.
What's your basis for claiming that most NIH funding is pissed
away? What's your definition of pissed away? What do
you mean by it being political? Grants are based on scientific
peer review by people unaffiliated with the applicant.
http://www.nurseweek.com/features/98-9/fund.html


You're a fool, but not if you benefit form these grants.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised while
maintaining levels of expenditure for things like defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised". Social
security payments that keep pace with inflation is an example of a
big part of the Federal budget that has been promised. You know
that we have a graduated income tax rate, but we have a
non-graduated payroll tax rate that kicks in for all salaried
people before income/withholding tax even applies. We take the
same 7.6% from each person and also from their employer no matter
what their income or means and we tell them that this is mostly for
their future social security payments. The govt. could cancel
those future payments, but then it would have lied to all those
people and taken money from them by force on false pretenses.
The President laid out a plan for SS. Alan Greenspan has indicated
that "promised" payments cannot be maintained.
Neutral analysts have said that Bush's numbers don't add up on this
topic. Greenspan's comments are partly taking Bush's tax cuts into
account.
Please. The tax cuts are the solution.
You keep restating this opinion with any evidence or argument, as
though it is just a matter of religious faith.
See above. Do I have to prove that letting peope keep the money they
earned is moral?
I'd like it if you would follow the argument more closely
and make it clear where you are making a moral argument and
where you are making a practical one. You started above by
claiming tax cuts could fix the problem of future unbalances
in the social security system, and when I question you about
it you are responding with a vague moral claim against all
taxation.
They are the same.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Lets see if we agree on something easy. The Dept. of Education
needs be eliminated Do you agree?
I agree that it is a bad dept. Just saying "elminiate" it
irresponsible however. The Federal govt. does have a role to play in
trying to see to it that every child has an opportunity to get a high
quality education.
No. Parents do. It is at best a local issue.
Lots of children are born to terrible, irresponsible parents in broken
homes. Are you saying that the govt. should ignore them?
Direct federal yes. But these is an extreme cases. You know we are not
talking about the extreme cases. May be you can help me out, what
should the government do when children are born to terrible,
irresponsible parents in broken homes?
One thing the govt. tries to do is make sure they go to grade
school.
Really.

Another thing it tries to do is make sure those schools
Post by Last2Know
meet some minimal standards.
Could these be applied to private schools?

A third thing the dept. of education
Post by Last2Know
does is offer loans to pay for post-grade school education for
applicants who qualify based on both achievement and need.
The department is a complete waste of money.
Post by Last2Know
So which of those things are you against and what do you
want to replace them with.
I not locked into that we need a dept of education. The government should
not be in the business of handing out scholarships.

It sounds like you are saying
Post by Last2Know
that parents do those things in most all cases and the cases
where they don't are too sporadic for the govt. to worry about.
Is that your position?
Did I say that? I said that the federal gov should not be in the business
of education. Clear?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are miles apart. I see the individual and family as the basic unit
of society. You fear freedom and wealth.
Bullshit.
You think taxing the rich is the solution. I don't. Its not BS.
I don't know what "taxing the rich is the solution" means.
I do know you said "You fear freedom and wealth" and that
is bullshit.
Taxing the rich and government proferring assistance is your plank. This is
the opposite of freedom and wealth. How are you going to have freedom and
wealth with high taxes? Impossible. Illogical. Inconsistent.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
I fear government. I see the
govenment as being very limited in what it can do.
Then your philosophy is very different from G.W. Bush who apparently
wants to use our armed forces to teach the world about democracy.
Really. Prove it. I didn't here that at all.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
You can skip the fluff at the top and read down to the last
eight paragraphs.
It just so happens that exporting and teaching demacracy is an excellent
defense policy. It is far more powerful than bullets and bombs. Hell, Reagan
won the cold war without firing a shot.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
You sound like a person who works as a government employee or relies
on the government.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. in some way. I am not a govt.
employee, but don't see why my arguments would be any less valid if I
was.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. Sure. Defense, Courts, Police,
Fire. Your statement means nothing.
It makes a difference. Perspective is everything. There is no doubt
your face is deep in the public trough.
So you're saying that anybody who actually works on Defense, Courts,
Police, Fire, etc. can't voice valid arguments in a debate about
taxes because their professional affiliation makes their point
of view biased and suspect?? By the same logic, all politicians
therefore are suspect and shouldn't speak on these topics.
It is highly unlikely your living is not made almost exclusively from
government. Of course they can voice valid arguements, but people argue
what's in their best self interest (Can you dispute that?). Knowing that
perspecitive is important. Politicians at least in theory are accountable to
the voters. Folks like you are not. You will always come up with a "need"
to spend other people's money.

Why don't you just be honest, you like government because you make your
living off government. One thing I have learned debating guys like you, I
have experience since I have many friends that attended Berkeley, is that
they have an underlying superiority complex since they have deluded
themselves into believing they don't act based on self interest. What a
bunch a crap! Believe or not there are Mensas who are conservative and are
going to vote for GWB. Ain't that strange?


Can you name one social program that needs eliminating?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Your basic arguement is to tax the rich so money will be avaliable for
politically motivated alternatives, e.g. save the whales, help the
children, build a new road, fund research, etc.
"Save the whales" is some sort of anti-liberal bogeyman that has
nothing to do with govt. and doesn't belong in this discussion.
Now please tell me why helping children, building and maintaining
roads, and funding research count as "politically motivated"
alternatives why defense spending and corporate welfare do
not.
Post by NoEd
That philosphy is both
immoral and, worse, bankrupt in its effect.
You just spout moral non-sequiturs at every gap in the
text without a shred of reason or coherency.
You're like a big gas balloon with a leak, darting around
in the wind.
Post by NoEd
My arguement is simple: taxes kill economies, regulations kill economies,
It's a matter of getting the right proportions, and also
a matter of balancing fairness and efficiency. Those
are not simple matters.
Who decides this? What is "fair?" Government? Give me a break.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
wealth is best for the environment
Meaning, according to you, that lower marginal tax
rates will help avoid pollution?? You've lost
me here.
Do richer countries have better environmental records as compared to poor
countries? If you don't have food, you really don't care about the
environment.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
governement should be
limited to those functions it best handles
Agree, if what you mean by that is the government
should only handle functions where it is the best
candidate to do so.
Post by NoEd
taxes to pay for those
function not best provided by government are immoral, parents should
have the option of sending there children to any school.
I support school vouchers in principle, but not as a ruse
to change the standards of publicly supported curriculum
in favor of religious curriculum or to take money out of
needy areas, or to provide a perk to people who don't
need it.
The areas where money should most be diverted to private schools is areas in
need. I have always trusted Sister Susan as opposed to administrator Al.
Josh Rosenbluth
2004-09-06 22:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
But what about the other key supply-side claim: that Reagan's tax cut
actually increased federal tax revenues? A close look at the data shows
that it didn't. Instead, what boosted Federal tax revenues during the
1980's was not individual income taxes but payroll taxes (the tax taken
out of your paycheck to pay for Social Security and Medicare). What
caused the 4.3% average growth in payroll tax revenues was not a tax cut
but a big tax increase, the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Try
explaining that with supply-side theory.
a.. Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s
from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal
revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax
revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.
Real income tax revenues were lower in each of the first 5 years
(fiscal 1982-86) after the Reagan tax cut than it was the year before
the tax cut (1981). Moreover, the supply-side claim isn't that
revenue would eventually (in this case 6 years out) recover to pre-tax
cut levels. It is that the deficit and debt would not be negatively
impacted by the tax cut. For that to be the case, actual revenue
(whether it goes up or down) would have to be larger than what revenue
would have been without the tax cut. What evidence is there for that?

Josh Rosenbluth
NoEd
2004-09-06 23:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
But what about the other key supply-side claim: that Reagan's tax cut
actually increased federal tax revenues? A close look at the data shows
that it didn't. Instead, what boosted Federal tax revenues during the
1980's was not individual income taxes but payroll taxes (the tax taken
out of your paycheck to pay for Social Security and Medicare). What
caused the 4.3% average growth in payroll tax revenues was not a tax cut
but a big tax increase, the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Try
explaining that with supply-side theory.
a.. Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s
from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal
revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax
revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.
Real income tax revenues were lower in each of the first 5 years
(fiscal 1982-86) after the Reagan tax cut than it was the year before
the tax cut (1981).
Support?

Moreover, the supply-side claim isn't that
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
revenue would eventually (in this case 6 years out) recover to pre-tax
cut levels.
Support?

It is that the deficit and debt would not be negatively
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
impacted by the tax cut.
It wasn't, except that spending went up. By the way I will concede some of
that spending went into bankrupting the Soviets. Not a bad return on
investment?

For that to be the case, actual revenue
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(whether it goes up or down) would have to be larger than what revenue
would have been without the tax cut. What evidence is there for that?
From 1981 to 1989 real federal
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax
revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.
For supply not to be right, individuals must not response to incentives.
Otherwise it is correct. Only in left wing fairy tales do people not want
to keep what they earn and will produce more the more they are taxed.

In otherwords, the left wing mantra that taxes don't matter contradicts
human nature.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
R. Anton Rave
2004-09-07 10:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
It is that the deficit and debt would not be negatively
impacted by the tax cut.
It wasn't, except that spending went up.
But the supply-siders said spending could go up even with massive tax
cuts and not cause deficits, thanks to the elixier of free lunch
voodoo economics. Economists Jude Wanniski and Alfred Laffer said
this, and so did supply-side advocates Jack Kemp and William F.
Buckley. They all predicted that the proposed 30% tax cut would cause
both high economic growth and high increases in tax revenue - don't
you remember the "Laffer curve"? But when things didn't turn out that
way, their excuse was that the 30% tax cut had been implemented too
slowly, 10% a year for 3 years rather than all at once.

The voodoo supply-siders predicted high growth and government
surpluses.

The fiscal conservatives (Peter Peterson & co.) and many liberals
predicted low growth and big government deficits.

A few mainstream Democratic economists, like Alice Rivlin and George
Schultz, and Michael Evans predicted decent growth and government
deficits. They were the only ones who got it right.

The problem with voodoo supply-side practitioners is that they assumes
every 1% cut in taxes results in a > 1% increase in revenue, but
economies behave that way only when the effective top tax rate is very
high, like the 80-104% rates Sweden once had (104% applied to people
who were both employed by a company and also self-employed), which
hasn't been the case in the U.S. since the 1940s (almost nobody really
paid the 70% top rate in effect before the Reagan cuts but more like
half that much). For the U.S., every 1% cut in taxes has resulted in
about a 0.3% decrease in revenue, and this happened even with the
Reagan tax cuts.

Apparently your hindsight isn't 20/20.
NoEd
2004-09-07 11:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Anton Rave
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
It is that the deficit and debt would not be negatively
impacted by the tax cut.
It wasn't, except that spending went up.
But the supply-siders said spending could go up even with massive tax
cuts and not cause deficits, thanks to the elixier of free lunch
voodoo economics. Economists Jude Wanniski and Alfred Laffer said
this, and so did supply-side advocates Jack Kemp and William F.
Buckley. They all predicted that the proposed 30% tax cut would cause
both high economic growth and high increases in tax revenue - don't
you remember the "Laffer curve"? But when things didn't turn out that
way, their excuse was that the 30% tax cut had been implemented too
slowly, 10% a year for 3 years rather than all at once.
The voodoo supply-siders predicted high growth and government
surpluses.
Support? What a completely stupid statement. Somebody said by cutting
taxes the government could spend all they want? Prove it. I have Jude's
book so I can look up your reference. I have never heard Jack Kemp say
that.
Post by R. Anton Rave
The fiscal conservatives (Peter Peterson & co.) and many liberals
predicted low growth and big government deficits.
Spending went up faster than revenue. Simple.
Post by R. Anton Rave
A few mainstream Democratic economists, like Alice Rivlin and George
Schultz, and Michael Evans predicted decent growth and government
deficits. They were the only ones who got it right.
Prove it. Milton Friedman is not a mainstream economist? Wasn't Schultz
Reagan's secretary of state? You call Rivlin mainstream? Standard left
wing gibberish.

I always chuckle when the left calls someone whom they agree with mainstream
and all others
"out of the mainstream."
Post by R. Anton Rave
The problem with voodoo supply-side practitioners is that they assumes
every 1% cut in taxes results in a > 1% increase in revenue, but
economies behave that way only when the effective top tax rate is very
high, like the 80-104% rates Sweden once had (104% applied to people
who were both employed by a company and also self-employed), which
hasn't been the case in the U.S. since the 1940s (almost nobody really
paid the 70% top rate in effect before the Reagan cuts but more like
half that much). For the U.S., every 1% cut in taxes has resulted in
about a 0.3% decrease in revenue, and this happened even with the
Reagan tax cuts.
Not according to the Cato study and every other creditable study I have
seen. You are simply wrong and miss informed. You probably get you
information from such sources as The Nation and Moveon.org.
Post by R. Anton Rave
Apparently your hindsight isn't 20/20.
My hindsight is just right. It is you who continue to deny reality. Only a
liberal like you could think that taxes are not too high, i.e. someone will
work just as hard and risk just as much at a say 50% tax rate as opposed to
a 15% tax rate.
Josh Rosenbluth
2004-09-07 18:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
The voodoo supply-siders predicted high growth and government
surpluses.
Support? What a completely stupid statement. Somebody said by cutting
taxes the government could spend all they want? Prove it. I have Jude's
book so I can look up your reference. I have never heard Jack Kemp say
that.
Reagan's initial budget submission in 1981 predicted a balanced budget
by 1984 even with the military expanison. They got there by assuming
4.4% annual GDP growth (remember Rosy Scenario?), even though the
post-WWII average was 3.5%. The actuals matched the historical
average and we were left holding the debt bag. The key test for
supply side was whether we could sustain new levels in growth. Supply
side failed that test.

Josh Rosenbluth
NoEd
2004-09-13 14:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Supply side worked, but spending must still be kept in check.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
The voodoo supply-siders predicted high growth and government
surpluses.
Support? What a completely stupid statement. Somebody said by cutting
taxes the government could spend all they want? Prove it. I have Jude's
book so I can look up your reference. I have never heard Jack Kemp say
that.
Reagan's initial budget submission in 1981 predicted a balanced budget
by 1984 even with the military expanison. They got there by assuming
4.4% annual GDP growth (remember Rosy Scenario?), even though the
post-WWII average was 3.5%. The actuals matched the historical
average and we were left holding the debt bag. The key test for
supply side was whether we could sustain new levels in growth. Supply
side failed that test.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
2004-09-13 20:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Supply side worked, but spending must still be kept in check.
No. Supply side specifically predicted that we could increase
spending as we actually did and still reach a balanced budget in 1984
thanks to a flood of tax-cut, supply-side revenue. Once again, the
predicted growth did not occur. Supply side failed the test.

Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
The voodoo supply-siders predicted high growth and government
surpluses.
Support? What a completely stupid statement. Somebody said by cutting
taxes the government could spend all they want? Prove it. I have Jude's
book so I can look up your reference. I have never heard Jack Kemp say
that.
Reagan's initial budget submission in 1981 predicted a balanced budget
by 1984 even with the military expanison. They got there by assuming
4.4% annual GDP growth (remember Rosy Scenario?), even though the
post-WWII average was 3.5%. The actuals matched the historical
average and we were left holding the debt bag. The key test for
supply side was whether we could sustain new levels in growth. Supply
side failed that test.
Josh Rosenbluth
NoEd
2004-09-14 01:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Sorry. Please provide a reference for any credible supply side advocate who
claims spending can increase by any amount if tax rates are decreased. Your
statement is silly, and I'm not sure if you're just dumb or playing a
political card.

Again I refer to the Cato report:

a.. Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the
1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they
totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections
grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax
rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years.
Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the
top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983,
and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will
have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the
top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6
percent in 1993. [19] On a purely static basis, the 1990 tax increase raised
$380 billion less in income tax revenues from 1991 to 1995 than had been
predicted. [20]

a.. Federal Spending. The federal budget was not cut under Reagan. In fact,
it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered it--22
percent larger in real terms. As a share of GDP, federal outlays declined by
less than 1 percentage point. [21]

And here are references 19,20 and 21:

19]. CBO Budget and Economic Update, August 1996.

20]. Congressional Budget Office, "Economic and Budget Outlook," December
1990.
[21]. Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1997.



Either these numbers are wrong or you're wrong. Its that simple.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Supply side worked, but spending must still be kept in check.
No. Supply side specifically predicted that we could increase
spending as we actually did and still reach a balanced budget in 1984
thanks to a flood of tax-cut, supply-side revenue. Once again, the
predicted growth did not occur. Supply side failed the test.
Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
The voodoo supply-siders predicted high growth and government
surpluses.
Support? What a completely stupid statement. Somebody said by cutting
taxes the government could spend all they want? Prove it. I have Jude's
book so I can look up your reference. I have never heard Jack Kemp say
that.
Reagan's initial budget submission in 1981 predicted a balanced budget
by 1984 even with the military expanison. They got there by assuming
4.4% annual GDP growth (remember Rosy Scenario?), even though the
post-WWII average was 3.5%. The actuals matched the historical
average and we were left holding the debt bag. The key test for
supply side was whether we could sustain new levels in growth. Supply
side failed that test.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
2004-09-14 01:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Sorry. Please provide a reference for any credible supply side advocate who
claims spending can increase by any amount if tax rates are decreased.
Your
Post by NoEd
statement is silly, and I'm not sure if you're just dumb or playing a
political card.
I never said that anyone (supply siders or otherwise) claimed you increase
spending by *any* amount. What I did say is the supply siders claimed you
could increase spending by the amount that Reagan proposed (a huge military
expansion), have a tax cut, and balance the budget by 1984 (3 years). That
is a fact as cited from Reagan's first budget proposal. They got to balance
by assuming the economy would grow at 4.4% per year (1%-point higher than
the post-WWII average) thanks to the tax cut. Actual growth only matched
the average, revenue did not come pouring in (in fact inflation adjusted
income tax revenues were lower in each of 1982-86 than they had been in
1981), and debt exploded.
Post by NoEd
a.. Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the
1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they
totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections
grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax
rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years.
Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the
top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983,
and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will
have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the
top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6
percent in 1993.
The latest projections from the CBO? The actuals have long-since come in.
Real income tax revenue actually grew by 36% in the 7 post-tax increase
years of 1991-1997, a cumulative annual average of 4.5% compared to 1.9%
from 1982-89. It's not even close. Moroever, looking from 1991-2000 (the
full business cycle with the higher rates), the growth rate averaged 5.5%.
The revenue growth in the Reagan years was anemic compared to what came
before or after. And repeating, revenue was lower in each of 1982-86 than
it was in 1981.
Post by NoEd
a.. Federal Spending. The federal budget was not cut under Reagan. In fact,
it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered it--22
percent larger in real terms.
Precisely. And yet the supply siders predicted that even with that increase
in spending, the budget would be balanced by 1984 thanks to a flood of
revenue. They were wrong.
Post by NoEd
Either these numbers are wrong or you're wrong. Its that simple.
The revenue growth under Bush41/Clinton was wrong, but that was because the
report is outdated and relied on projections Other than that, the numbers
are correct. And those numbers support my conclusions.

Josh Rosenbluth
NoEd
2004-09-14 03:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Sorry. Please provide a reference for any credible supply side advocate
who
Post by NoEd
claims spending can increase by any amount if tax rates are decreased.
Your
Post by NoEd
statement is silly, and I'm not sure if you're just dumb or playing a
political card.
I never said that anyone (supply siders or otherwise) claimed you increase
spending by *any* amount. What I did say is the supply siders claimed you
could increase spending by the amount that Reagan proposed (a huge military
expansion), have a tax cut, and balance the budget by 1984 (3 years).
That
is a fact as cited from Reagan's first budget proposal. They got to balance
by assuming the economy would grow at 4.4% per year (1%-point higher than
the post-WWII average) thanks to the tax cut. Actual growth only matched
the average, revenue did not come pouring in (in fact inflation adjusted
income tax revenues were lower in each of 1982-86 than they had been in
1981), and debt exploded.
Obviously with a Democrat Congress Reagan's budgets didn't stand a chance.
Additionally, the defense spending won the cold war. You have now changed
your arguement. Your orginal statement:

"Supply side specifically predicted that we could increase
spending as we actually did and still reach a balanced budget in 1984
thanks to a flood of tax-cut, supply-side revenue. Once again, the
predicted growth did not occur. Supply side failed the test."

Now:

What I did say is the supply siders claimed you
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
could increase spending by the amount that Reagan proposed (a huge military
expansion), have a tax cut, and balance the budget by 1984 (3 years).
Post by NoEd
a.. Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in
the
Post by NoEd
1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they
totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax
collections
Post by NoEd
grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income
tax
Post by NoEd
rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton
years.
Post by NoEd
Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the
top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in
1983,
Post by NoEd
and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will
have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the
top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6
percent in 1993.
The latest projections from the CBO?
Come look at the date of the Cato Report.

The actuals have long-since come in.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Real income tax revenue actually grew by 36% in the 7 post-tax increase
years of 1991-1997, a cumulative annual average of 4.5% compared to 1.9%
from 1982-89. It's not even close.
Actually, the Reagan tax cuts benefited the 90's and you combine that with a
Republican Congress, the peace dividend, the tax revenues were to be
expected as a continuation of the 80's. I don't remember reading tax rates
returning to the 50% level. So again, supply side has proven it self.
Furthermore, the comparison need to be with the 70's not the 90's.

You didn't provide support for your numbers.

Now back to the CATO report:

Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic
product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8
percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent
growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s,
which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and
the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the
economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the
Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was
when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president
since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and
1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of
more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts
of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent
annual real growth.

More proof that supply side works.



Moroever, looking from 1991-2000 (the
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
full business cycle with the higher rates), the growth rate averaged 5.5%.
The revenue growth in the Reagan years was anemic compared to what came
before or after. And repeating, revenue was lower in each of 1982-86 than
it was in 1981.
See my comments above.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
a.. Federal Spending. The federal budget was not cut under Reagan. In
fact,
Post by NoEd
it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered
it--22
Post by NoEd
percent larger in real terms.
Precisely. And yet the supply siders predicted that even with that increase
in spending, the budget would be balanced by 1984 thanks to a flood of
revenue. They were wrong.
Who said you can increase spending to any amount since tax rates have been
cut? You're all over the board.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Either these numbers are wrong or you're wrong. Its that simple.
The revenue growth under Bush41/Clinton was wrong, but that was because the
report is outdated and relied on projections Other than that, the numbers
are correct. And those numbers support my conclusions.
The only thing you said is that the budget was not balanced in 1984.
Revenues did go up, PERIOD. Completed contracting the tax and spend
Democrats. The 90's were a continuation of the 80's. If not, what was the
difference?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
NoEd
2004-09-14 04:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Sorry. Please provide a reference for any credible supply side advocate
who
Post by NoEd
claims spending can increase by any amount if tax rates are decreased.
Your
Post by NoEd
statement is silly, and I'm not sure if you're just dumb or playing a
political card.
I never said that anyone (supply siders or otherwise) claimed you increase
spending by *any* amount. What I did say is the supply siders claimed you
could increase spending by the amount that Reagan proposed (a huge military
expansion), have a tax cut, and balance the budget by 1984 (3 years).
That
is a fact as cited from Reagan's first budget proposal. They got to balance
by assuming the economy would grow at 4.4% per year (1%-point higher than
the post-WWII average) thanks to the tax cut. Actual growth only matched
the average, revenue did not come pouring in (in fact inflation adjusted
income tax revenues were lower in each of 1982-86 than they had been in
1981), and debt exploded.
Obviously with a Democratic Congress Reagan's budgets didn't stand a chance.
Additionally, the defense spending won the cold war. You have now changed
your arguement. Your orginal statement:

"Supply side specifically predicted that we could increase
spending as we actually did and still reach a balanced budget in 1984
thanks to a flood of tax-cut, supply-side revenue. Once again, the
predicted growth did not occur. Supply side failed the test."

Now:

What I did say is the supply siders claimed you
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
could increase spending by the amount that Reagan proposed (a huge military
expansion), have a tax cut, and balance the budget by 1984 (3 years).
Post by NoEd
a.. Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in
the
Post by NoEd
1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they
totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax
collections
Post by NoEd
grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income
tax
Post by NoEd
rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton
years.
Post by NoEd
Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the
top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in
1983,
Post by NoEd
and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will
have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the
top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6
percent in 1993.
The latest projections from the CBO?
Come on look at the date of the Cato Report.

The actuals have long-since come in.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Real income tax revenue actually grew by 36% in the 7 post-tax increase
years of 1991-1997, a cumulative annual average of 4.5% compared to 1.9%
from 1982-89. It's not even close.
Actually, the Reagan tax cuts benefited the 90's and you combine that with a
Republican Congress, the peace dividend, the tax revenue growth natually
grew as a continuation of the 80's. I don't remember reading tax rates
returning to the 50% level. So again, supply side has proven itself.
Furthermore, the comparison needs to be with the 70's not the 90's.

You didn't provide support for your numbers.

Now back to the CATO report:

Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic
product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8
percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent
growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s,
which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and
the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the
economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the
Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was
when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president
since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and
1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of
more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts
of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent
annual real growth.

More proof that supply side works.



Moroever, looking from 1991-2000 (the
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
full business cycle with the higher rates), the growth rate averaged 5.5%.
The revenue growth in the Reagan years was anemic compared to what came
before or after. And repeating, revenue was lower in each of 1982-86 than
it was in 1981.
See my comments above.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
a.. Federal Spending. The federal budget was not cut under Reagan. In
fact,
Post by NoEd
it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered
it--22
Post by NoEd
percent larger in real terms.
Precisely. And yet the supply siders predicted that even with that increase
in spending, the budget would be balanced by 1984 thanks to a flood of
revenue. They were wrong.
Who said you can increase spending to any amount since tax rates have been
cut? You're all over the board.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Either these numbers are wrong or you're wrong. Its that simple.
The revenue growth under Bush41/Clinton was wrong, but that was because the
report is outdated and relied on projections Other than that, the numbers
are correct. And those numbers support my conclusions.
The only thing you said is that the budget was not balanced in 1984.
Revenues did go up, PERIOD. This completely contradicts the tax and spend
Democrats, who predicted they The 90's were a continuation of the 80's. If
not, what was the
difference?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
2004-09-14 14:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Obviously with a Democratic Congress Reagan's budgets didn't stand a chance.
Over the 8 years, the Congressional budgets exceeded the Reagan
proposals by only 0.5%, essentially nothing. In total, Reagan got the
spending he asked for (Congress did roll back some of Reagan's
proposed military increases and trimmed his domestic cuts, but the
total budget outlays was virtually the same).
Post by NoEd
You have now changed
"Supply side specifically predicted that we could increase
spending as we actually did and still reach a balanced budget in 1984
thanks to a flood of tax-cut, supply-side revenue. Once again, the
predicted growth did not occur. Supply side failed the test."
What I did say is the supply siders claimed you
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
could increase spending by the amount that Reagan proposed (a huge military
expansion), have a tax cut, and balance the budget by 1984 (3 years).
Those two statements say the same thing.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The latest projections from the CBO?
Come on look at the date of the Cato Report.
Correct. The Cato Report was written in 1996 before the actuals came
in. They had to rely on projections. We do not have to anymore.
Post by NoEd
The actuals have long-since come in.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Real income tax revenue actually grew by 36% in the 7 post-tax increase
years of 1991-1997, a cumulative annual average of 4.5% compared to 1.9%
from 1982-89. It's not even close.
Actually, the Reagan tax cuts benefited the 90's and you combine that with a
Republican Congress, the peace dividend, the tax revenue growth natually
grew as a continuation of the 80's.
Funny how when you think (based on CATO's premature projections) that
the 90's revenue growth is less than the 80's, those data support
supply side. But, when you are faced with the fact that revenue grew
much, much faster in the 90's you change your tune and claim the 90's
are a continuation of Reagan policy.

Why bother with serious debate when you can spin the results (once you
know what they are) to support your pre-determined conclusion?
Post by NoEd
Furthermore, the comparison needs to be with the 70's not the 90's.
Real income tax revenue grew at 4.4% per year in the business cycle in
the late 70's (the one just before Reagan). That cycle saw good GDP
growth (3.4%) and revenue growth much faster than under Reagan.
Revenue grew at the same slower rate as under Reagan (1.8%) in the
business cycle of the early 70's (which was one of weaker growth, only
2.6% see data below). Your point would be made if that business cycle
of the early 70's was typical of the pre-Reagan years, and the Reagan
years represented a trend upwards. See the data below for more.
Post by NoEd
You didn't provide support for your numbers.
They all come from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf

Table 2.1 gives the nominal income tax revenues, Table 1.3 gives the
inflation adjustment factors.
Post by NoEd
Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic
product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8
percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995.
The 3.2 percent figure is correct (actually I have it at 3.5%) and a
fair assessment of Reagan's record. Recall, that supply-siders
predicted 4.4% growth. The 2.8% figure is bogus because it includes a
time period of 2 recessions and one expansion.

A quick aside. Imagine an economy that grows by 3.4% in every
business cycle forever. It grows by 4.2% for seven expansion years
followed by a contraction of 2% in the eighth year. It does this
forever in a repeating pattern. If you measure the growth over 9
years including 2 recessions and one expansion, you conclude the
growth rate is 2.8%. And that measure is bogus. Of course, the true
growth rate is 3.4%. As with any periodic function, you must measure
over whole business cycles. To do otherwise introduces statistical
bias.

CATO made that mistake above. Over the one whole business cycle prior
to Reagan, 1Q75 to 3Q80, GDP grew at 3.4% per year. The post-WWII
average is 3.5%.

As far as the post-Reagan growth, once again CATO stops at 1995
(because they had to). We know now the growth rate from 1Q91 to 3Q01
(complete business cycle) was 3.2%.
Post by NoEd
The 3.2 percent
growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s,
which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and
the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the
economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the
Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was
when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president
since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and
1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of
more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts
of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent
annual real growth.
More proof that supply side works.
The growth rate in the 50's and 60's was higher than that of the 80's.
The growth rate in the second business cycle of the 70's matches the
80's. Here are the growth rates in the post-WWII business cycles:

Early 50's: 5.7%
Mid 50's: 2.5%
Late 50's: 3.4%
60's: 4.5%
Early 70's: 2.6%
Late 70's: 3.4%
Reagan: 3.5%
Bush41/Clinton: 3.2%

There is no trend upward in the Reagan years. Supply side predicted a
spike to 4.4%. Didn't happen.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Precisely. And yet the supply siders predicted that even with that increase
in spending, the budget would be balanced by 1984 thanks to a flood of
revenue. They were wrong.
Who said you can increase spending to any amount since tax rates have been
cut? You're all over the board.
Repeating, I NEVER said anything about increasing spending to any (an
arbitrarily high) amount. I specifically (over and over and over)
said supply siders claimed you could increase spending in the amount
that Reagan asked for (and actually got) and still balance the budget
thanks to a flood of revenue. That claim was proved to be false.
Post by NoEd
The only thing you said is that the budget was not balanced in 1984.
Revenues did go up, PERIOD.
Inflation adjusted income tax revenues were lower in each of 1982-86
than they were in 1981 (the last pre-tax cut year). Are you claiming
that the deficit and debt would have been even larger than it actually
was if we didn't have the tax cut?

Josh Rosenbluth
NoEd
2004-09-14 15:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Obviously with a Democratic Congress Reagan's budgets didn't stand a chance.
Over the 8 years, the Congressional budgets exceeded the Reagan
proposals by only 0.5%, essentially nothing. In total, Reagan got the
spending he asked for (Congress did roll back some of Reagan's
proposed military increases and trimmed his domestic cuts, but the
total budget outlays was virtually the same).
Proof? Where are you getting you numbers?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
You have now changed
"Supply side specifically predicted that we could increase
spending as we actually did and still reach a balanced budget in 1984
thanks to a flood of tax-cut, supply-side revenue. Once again, the
predicted growth did not occur. Supply side failed the test."
What I did say is the supply siders claimed you
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
could increase spending by the amount that Reagan proposed (a huge military
expansion), have a tax cut, and balance the budget by 1984 (3 years).
Those two statements say the same thing.
No they don't. The first says that it is inherent in SS that spending could
be increased by any amount and the budget could still be balanced in 1984.
The second says a group of SS claimed that a tax cut would still produce a
balanced budget even with the projected spending increases.

Proof for both statements. Please.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The latest projections from the CBO?
Come on look at the date of the Cato Report.
Correct. The Cato Report was written in 1996 before the actuals came
in. They had to rely on projections. We do not have to anymore.
Post by NoEd
The actuals have long-since come in.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Real income tax revenue actually grew by 36% in the 7 post-tax increase
years of 1991-1997, a cumulative annual average of 4.5% compared to 1.9%
from 1982-89. It's not even close.
Actually, the Reagan tax cuts benefited the 90's and you combine that with a
Republican Congress, the peace dividend, the tax revenue growth natually
grew as a continuation of the 80's.
Funny how when you think (based on CATO's premature projections) that
the 90's revenue growth is less than the 80's, those data support
supply side. But, when you are faced with the fact that revenue grew
much, much faster in the 90's you change your tune and claim the 90's
are a continuation of Reagan policy.
No. I didn't change my tune. You have to look at why revenue increased in
both decades as compared to the 70's. Were tax rates raised to the rates
prior to 1981? No they were not.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Why bother with serious debate when you can spin the results (once you
know what they are) to support your pre-determined conclusion?
It is like saying that a sick patient was cured in the 80's and his health
steadly improved. You would argue that his health was better after a year
than after a month without acknowledging why his health was improving.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Furthermore, the comparison needs to be with the 70's not the 90's.
Real income tax revenue grew at 4.4% per year in the business cycle in
the late 70's (the one just before Reagan).
So you are arguing the economy was better in the 70's than in the 80's?
Reagan beat Carter because people were statisfied with the economy?
Inflation was not raging at 10%+ and interrates at record levels? If I
hand more time I would like at the S&P 500.


That cycle saw good GDP
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
growth (3.4%) and revenue growth much faster than under Reagan.
Revenue grew at the same slower rate as under Reagan (1.8%) in the
business cycle of the early 70's (which was one of weaker growth, only
2.6% see data below). Your point would be made if that business cycle
of the early 70's was typical of the pre-Reagan years, and the Reagan
years represented a trend upwards. See the data below for more.
Post by NoEd
You didn't provide support for your numbers.
They all come from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 2.1 gives the nominal income tax revenues, Table 1.3 gives the
inflation adjustment factors.
Show me your calculation.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic
product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8
percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995.
The 3.2 percent figure is correct (actually I have it at 3.5%) and a
fair assessment of Reagan's record. Recall, that supply-siders
predicted 4.4% growth. The 2.8% figure is bogus because it includes a
time period of 2 recessions and one expansion.
LOL. So an apples to apples comparison is bogus? Was there not a recession
in the early 80's. Reagan did this while lowering interest rates, getting
energy prices back in line, and lowing interest rates. Not bad.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
A quick aside. Imagine an economy that grows by 3.4% in every
business cycle forever. It grows by 4.2% for seven expansion years
followed by a contraction of 2% in the eighth year. It does this
forever in a repeating pattern. If you measure the growth over 9
years including 2 recessions and one expansion, you conclude the
growth rate is 2.8%. And that measure is bogus. Of course, the true
growth rate is 3.4%. As with any periodic function, you must measure
over whole business cycles. To do otherwise introduces statistical
bias.
Irrelevant.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
CATO made that mistake above. Over the one whole business cycle prior
to Reagan, 1Q75 to 3Q80, GDP grew at 3.4% per year. The post-WWII
average is 3.5%.
You throw alot of numbers around, but where do you get them and show how
calculated them.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
As far as the post-Reagan growth, once again CATO stops at 1995
(because they had to). We know now the growth rate from 1Q91 to 3Q01
(complete business cycle) was 3.2%.
Irrelevant.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
The 3.2 percent
growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s,
which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and
the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the
economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the
Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was
when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president
since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and
1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of
more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts
of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent
annual real growth.
More proof that supply side works.
The growth rate in the 50's and 60's was higher than that of the 80's.
The growth rate in the second business cycle of the 70's matches the
50's is the effect of WWII plus the very low numbers from the great
depression.

60's Kennedy cut taxes in the early 60's.

70's Suffered from high energy costs, high interest rates, etc.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Early 50's: 5.7%
Mid 50's: 2.5%
Late 50's: 3.4%
60's: 4.5%
Early 70's: 2.6%
Late 70's: 3.4%
Reagan: 3.5%
Bush41/Clinton: 3.2%
There is no trend upward in the Reagan years. Supply side predicted a
spike to 4.4%. Didn't happen.
OK the prediction was off, but GDP went up in the 80's and the 90's. You
can't argue that higher taxes have no effect on the economy. Sorry.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Precisely. And yet the supply siders predicted that even with that increase
in spending, the budget would be balanced by 1984 thanks to a flood of
revenue. They were wrong.
Who said you can increase spending to any amount since tax rates have been
cut? You're all over the board.
Repeating, I NEVER said anything about increasing spending to any (an
arbitrarily high) amount. I specifically (over and over and over)
said supply siders claimed you could increase spending in the amount
that Reagan asked for (and actually got) and still balance the budget
thanks to a flood of revenue. That claim was proved to be false.
What the increase in spending makes all the difference.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
The only thing you said is that the budget was not balanced in 1984.
Revenues did go up, PERIOD.
Inflation adjusted income tax revenues were lower in each of 1982-86
than they were in 1981 (the last pre-tax cut year). Are you claiming
that the deficit and debt would have been even larger than it actually
was if we didn't have the tax cut?
Yes because we would have never had the economic expansion that did occur
and continues to occur to this day. You probably can slice and dice the 80's
to prove anything you want, but the following from the CATO report is
correct:

a.. Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the
1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they
totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections
grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax
rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years.
Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the
top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983,
and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will
have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the
top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6
percent in 1993. [19] On a purely static basis, the 1990 tax increase raised
$380 billion less in income tax revenues from 1991 to 1995 than had been
predicted. [20]

You will never convince any person that actually produces income that higher
taxes are better for the economy. Individuals will work harder at a 70% tax
rate than at a 50% tax rate. The left doesn't want to believe this simply
because they want to be able to extract addition money from individuals with
impunity.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
2004-09-14 22:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Over the 8 years, the Congressional budgets exceeded the Reagan
proposals by only 0.5%, essentially nothing. In total, Reagan got the
spending he asked for (Congress did roll back some of Reagan's
proposed military increases and trimmed his domestic cuts, but the
total budget outlays was virtually the same).
Proof? Where are you getting you numbers?
The Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1981-88:

Fiscal Year Reagan Proposal Enacted Congressional Budget
1982 695.3 695.5
1983 757.6 769.8
1984 848.5 849.5
1985 925.5 932.0
1986 973.7 967.6
1987 994.0 995.0
1988 1024.3 1040.8
1989 1094.2 1099.7

Total 7313.1 7349.9
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
You have now changed
"Supply side specifically predicted that we could increase
spending as we actually did and still reach a balanced budget in 1984
thanks to a flood of tax-cut, supply-side revenue. Once again, the
predicted growth did not occur. Supply side failed the test."
What I did say is the supply siders claimed you
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
could increase spending by the amount that Reagan proposed (a huge military
expansion), have a tax cut, and balance the budget by 1984 (3 years).
Those two statements say the same thing.
No they don't. The first says that it is inherent in SS that spending cou
ld
Post by NoEd
be increased by any amount and the budget could still be balanced in 1984.
The second says a group of SS claimed that a tax cut would still produce a
balanced budget even with the projected spending increases.
The first says "spending as we actually did." That's not "spending could be
increased by any amount."
Post by NoEd
Proof for both statements. Please.
They are one statement. As previously stated, the source is Reagan's budget
proposal of February 1981 which projected a balanced budget in 1984. Actual
revenues ended up being 104B smaller than projected because the economy did
not grow any faster after the tax cut than it did before in spite of supply
side's prediction it would.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Furthermore, the comparison needs to be with the 70's not the 90's.
Real income tax revenue grew at 4.4% per year in the business cycle in
the late 70's (the one just before Reagan).
So you are arguing the economy was better in the 70's than in the 80's?
No. I am saying that GDP grew no faster before the tax cut than after, and
income tax revenue grew much faster before than after. That doesn't mean
the economy as a whole was better. But it does mean the supply side claims
that tax cuts did not contribute to the debt explosion in the 80's are
wrong.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
They all come from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 2.1 gives the nominal income tax revenues, Table 1.3 gives the
inflation adjustment factors.
Show me your calculation.
One example. From Table 2.1, income tax revenue in 1975 was 163B (122
personal plus 41 corporate). In 1981, that figure rose to 347B. The
inflation adjustment factors from Table 1.3 for 1975 and 1981 are 0.3384 and
0.5562 respectively. The inflation-adjusted revenue in 1975 is 163/0.3384
or 482B. In 1981 it is 347/.5562 or 624B. The cumulative average annual
growth rate in revenue for the six-year period 1976-1981 (one expansion, one
recession) is:

1 - (624/482)^(1/6) = 4.4%.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The 3.2 percent figure is correct (actually I have it at 3.5%) and a
fair assessment of Reagan's record. Recall, that supply-siders
predicted 4.4% growth. The 2.8% figure is bogus because it includes a
time period of 2 recessions and one expansion.
LOL. So an apples to apples comparison is bogus? Was there not a recession
in the early 80's. Reagan did this while lowering interest rates, getting
energy prices back in line, and lowing interest rates. Not bad.
It's not apples to apples. Cato used a pre-Reagan period that had two
recessions and one expansion. The post-Reagan years had one expansion and
one recession. The correct methodology is the latter. The former
introduces a statistical bias that underestimates the true growth as
previously explained.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
A quick aside. Imagine an economy that grows by 3.4% in every
business cycle forever. It grows by 4.2% for seven expansion years
followed by a contraction of 2% in the eighth year. It does this
forever in a repeating pattern. If you measure the growth over 9
years including 2 recessions and one expansion, you conclude the
growth rate is 2.8%. And that measure is bogus. Of course, the true
growth rate is 3.4%. As with any periodic function, you must measure
over whole business cycles. To do otherwise introduces statistical
bias.
Irrelevant.
It is very relevant. When CATO used a pre-Reagan period that had two
recessions and one expansion they introduced a statistical bias exactly as
in my example.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
CATO made that mistake above. Over the one whole business cycle prior
to Reagan, 1Q75 to 3Q80, GDP grew at 3.4% per year. The post-WWII
average is 3.5%.
You throw alot of numbers around, but where do you get them and show how
calculated them.
My GDP numbers come from http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/home/gdplev.xls

One example calculation. Column "G" lists the inflation-adjusted GDP values
by quarter. To compute the GDP growth for the 22 quarters from 2Q75 to 3Q80
(the business cycle from the beginning of an expansion in 2Q75 through a
complete recession in 3Q80), add up the GDP for the 4 quarters that preceed
2Q75. That total is 17.18T. Now add up the 4 quarters ending in 3Q80.
That total is 20.65T. The cumulative average annual growth rate is:

1 - (20.65/17.18)^(4/22) = 3.4%
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Early 50's: 5.7%
Mid 50's: 2.5%
Late 50's: 3.4%
60's: 4.5%
Early 70's: 2.6%
Late 70's: 3.4%
Reagan: 3.5%
Bush41/Clinton: 3.2%
There is no trend upward in the Reagan years. Supply side predicted a
spike to 4.4%. Didn't happen.
OK the prediction was off, but GDP went up in the 80's and the 90's. You
can't argue that higher taxes have no effect on the economy. Sorry.
You are more than welcome to live in fantasy land and conclude that there is
an upward trend in GDP in the 80's and 90's. Others viewing those numbers
can judge for themselves.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Inflation adjusted income tax revenues were lower in each of 1982-86
than they were in 1981 (the last pre-tax cut year). Are you claiming
that the deficit and debt would have been even larger than it actually
was if we didn't have the tax cut?
Yes because we would have never had the economic expansion that did occur
and continues to occur to this day. You probably can slice and dice the 80's
to prove anything you want, but the following from the CATO report is
Again, you are free to live in fantasy land and claim there would not have
been an expansion without the tax cut in the face of those GDP data above.
But you cannot deny that inflation-adjusted income tax revenues were lower
in each of 1982-86 than they were in 1981. And you are also free to repeat
the same incomplete, and therefore incorrect, CATO data all you want.
Post by NoEd
You will never convince any person that actually produces income that higher
taxes are better for the economy. Individuals will work harder at a 70% tax
rate than at a 50% tax rate.
How much harder? Hard enough to make up for the increased debt which sucks
capital from private-sector investment? Maybe. Maybe not. It is an
empirically-answerable question. And as the data show, GDP did not grow
faster after the tax cut then it did before.
Post by NoEd
The left doesn't want to believe this simply
because they want to be able to extract addition money from individuals with
impunity.
You mean lefties like Greenspan who agrees with me?

Josh Rosenbluth
NoEd
2004-09-15 03:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Over the 8 years, the Congressional budgets exceeded the Reagan
proposals by only 0.5%, essentially nothing. In total, Reagan got the
spending he asked for (Congress did roll back some of Reagan's
proposed military increases and trimmed his domestic cuts, but the
total budget outlays was virtually the same).
Proof? Where are you getting you numbers?
Fiscal Year Reagan Proposal Enacted Congressional Budget
1982 695.3 695.5
1983 757.6 769.8
1984 848.5 849.5
1985 925.5 932.0
1986 973.7 967.6
1987 994.0 995.0
1988 1024.3 1040.8
1989 1094.2 1099.7
Total 7313.1 7349.9
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
You have now changed
"Supply side specifically predicted that we could increase
spending as we actually did and still reach a balanced budget in 1984
thanks to a flood of tax-cut, supply-side revenue. Once again, the
predicted growth did not occur. Supply side failed the test."
What I did say is the supply siders claimed you
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
could increase spending by the amount that Reagan proposed (a huge military
expansion), have a tax cut, and balance the budget by 1984 (3 years).
Those two statements say the same thing.
No they don't. The first says that it is inherent in SS that spending cou
ld
Post by NoEd
be increased by any amount and the budget could still be balanced in 1984.
The second says a group of SS claimed that a tax cut would still produce a
balanced budget even with the projected spending increases.
The first says "spending as we actually did." That's not "spending could be
increased by any amount."
Post by NoEd
Proof for both statements. Please.
They are one statement. As previously stated, the source is Reagan's budget
proposal of February 1981 which projected a balanced budget in 1984.
Actual
revenues ended up being 104B smaller than projected because the economy did
not grow any faster after the tax cut than it did before in spite of supply
side's prediction it would.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Furthermore, the comparison needs to be with the 70's not the 90's.
Real income tax revenue grew at 4.4% per year in the business cycle in
the late 70's (the one just before Reagan).
So you are arguing the economy was better in the 70's than in the 80's?
No. I am saying that GDP grew no faster before the tax cut than after, and
income tax revenue grew much faster before than after. That doesn't mean
the economy as a whole was better. But it does mean the supply side claims
that tax cuts did not contribute to the debt explosion in the 80's are
wrong.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
They all come from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 2.1 gives the nominal income tax revenues, Table 1.3 gives the
inflation adjustment factors.
Show me your calculation.
One example. From Table 2.1, income tax revenue in 1975 was 163B (122
personal plus 41 corporate). In 1981, that figure rose to 347B. The
inflation adjustment factors from Table 1.3 for 1975 and 1981 are 0.3384 and
0.5562 respectively. The inflation-adjusted revenue in 1975 is 163/0.3384
or 482B. In 1981 it is 347/.5562 or 624B. The cumulative average annual
growth rate in revenue for the six-year period 1976-1981 (one expansion, one
1 - (624/482)^(1/6) = 4.4%.
This is going to take some work, and I am simply too tired to address this.
But I will.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The 3.2 percent figure is correct (actually I have it at 3.5%) and a
fair assessment of Reagan's record. Recall, that supply-siders
predicted 4.4% growth. The 2.8% figure is bogus because it includes a
time period of 2 recessions and one expansion.
LOL. So an apples to apples comparison is bogus? Was there not a
recession
Post by NoEd
in the early 80's. Reagan did this while lowering interest rates,
getting
Post by NoEd
energy prices back in line, and lowing interest rates. Not bad.
It's not apples to apples. Cato used a pre-Reagan period that had two
recessions and one expansion. The post-Reagan years had one expansion and
one recession. The correct methodology is the latter. The former
introduces a statistical bias that underestimates the true growth as
previously explained.
No. We are simply comparing before Reagan and after Reagan, i.e. what was
the economy before and after.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
A quick aside. Imagine an economy that grows by 3.4% in every
business cycle forever. It grows by 4.2% for seven expansion years
followed by a contraction of 2% in the eighth year. It does this
forever in a repeating pattern. If you measure the growth over 9
years including 2 recessions and one expansion, you conclude the
growth rate is 2.8%. And that measure is bogus. Of course, the true
growth rate is 3.4%. As with any periodic function, you must measure
over whole business cycles. To do otherwise introduces statistical
bias.
Irrelevant.
It is very relevant. When CATO used a pre-Reagan period that had two
recessions and one expansion they introduced a statistical bias exactly as
in my example.
See above.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
CATO made that mistake above. Over the one whole business cycle prior
to Reagan, 1Q75 to 3Q80, GDP grew at 3.4% per year. The post-WWII
average is 3.5%.
You throw alot of numbers around, but where do you get them and show how
calculated them.
My GDP numbers come from http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/home/gdplev.xls
One example calculation. Column "G" lists the inflation-adjusted GDP values
by quarter. To compute the GDP growth for the 22 quarters from 2Q75 to 3Q80
(the business cycle from the beginning of an expansion in 2Q75 through a
complete recession in 3Q80), add up the GDP for the 4 quarters that preceed
2Q75. That total is 17.18T. Now add up the 4 quarters ending in 3Q80.
1 - (20.65/17.18)^(4/22) = 3.4%
See above. But I will address this.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Early 50's: 5.7%
Mid 50's: 2.5%
Late 50's: 3.4%
60's: 4.5%
Early 70's: 2.6%
Late 70's: 3.4%
Reagan: 3.5%
Bush41/Clinton: 3.2%
There is no trend upward in the Reagan years. Supply side predicted a
spike to 4.4%. Didn't happen.
OK the prediction was off, but GDP went up in the 80's and the 90's. You
can't argue that higher taxes have no effect on the economy. Sorry.
You are more than welcome to live in fantasy land and conclude that there is
an upward trend in GDP in the 80's and 90's. Others viewing those numbers
can judge for themselves.
I will address this.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Inflation adjusted income tax revenues were lower in each of 1982-86
than they were in 1981 (the last pre-tax cut year). Are you claiming
that the deficit and debt would have been even larger than it actually
was if we didn't have the tax cut?
Yes because we would have never had the economic expansion that did occur
and continues to occur to this day. You probably can slice and dice the
80's
Post by NoEd
to prove anything you want, but the following from the CATO report is
Again, you are free to live in fantasy land and claim there would not have
been an expansion without the tax cut in the face of those GDP data above.
But you cannot deny that inflation-adjusted income tax revenues were lower
in each of 1982-86 than they were in 1981. And you are also free to repeat
the same incomplete, and therefore incorrect, CATO data all you want.
I will continue, since it is correct.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
You will never convince any person that actually produces income that
higher
Post by NoEd
taxes are better for the economy. Individuals will work harder at a 70%
tax
Post by NoEd
rate than at a 50% tax rate.
How much harder? Hard enough to make up for the increased debt which sucks
capital from private-sector investment? Maybe. Maybe not. It is an
empirically-answerable question. And as the data show, GDP did not grow
faster after the tax cut then it did before.
The increase debt is caused by increased spending. May I remind you that
interest rates were recently at record lows.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
The left doesn't want to believe this simply
because they want to be able to extract addition money from individuals
with
Post by NoEd
impunity.
You mean lefties like Greenspan who agrees with me?
Greenspan thinks tax rates should be 70%?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
2004-09-15 13:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
They all come from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 2.1 gives the nominal income tax revenues, Table 1.3 gives the
inflation adjustment factors.
Show me your calculation.
One example. From Table 2.1, income tax revenue in 1975 was 163B (122
personal plus 41 corporate). In 1981, that figure rose to 347B. The
inflation adjustment factors from Table 1.3 for 1975 and 1981 are 0.3384 and
0.5562 respectively. The inflation-adjusted revenue in 1975 is 163/0.3384
or 482B. In 1981 it is 347/.5562 or 624B. The cumulative average annual
growth rate in revenue for the six-year period 1976-1981 (one expansion, one
1 - (624/482)^(1/6) = 4.4%.
This is going to take some work, and I am simply too tired to address this.
But I will.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The 3.2 percent figure is correct (actually I have it at 3.5%) and a
fair assessment of Reagan's record. Recall, that supply-siders
predicted 4.4% growth. The 2.8% figure is bogus because it includes a
time period of 2 recessions and one expansion.
LOL. So an apples to apples comparison is bogus? Was there not a
recession
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
in the early 80's. Reagan did this while lowering interest rates,
getting
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
energy prices back in line, and lowing interest rates. Not bad.
It's not apples to apples. Cato used a pre-Reagan period that had two
recessions and one expansion. The post-Reagan years had one expansion and
one recession. The correct methodology is the latter. The former
introduces a statistical bias that underestimates the true growth as
previously explained.
No. We are simply comparing before Reagan and after Reagan, i.e. what was
the economy before and after.
Of course we are comparing before and after Reagan. But the years
chosen, both before and after, for that comparison *must* cover whole
business cycles. Otherwise, you introduce a statistical bias (not a
political bias) as in my example. Please look at that example again
(it's just below this note, starting out "A quick aside").
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
A quick aside. Imagine an economy that grows by 3.4% in every
business cycle forever. It grows by 4.2% for seven expansion years
followed by a contraction of 2% in the eighth year. It does this
forever in a repeating pattern. If you measure the growth over 9
years including 2 recessions and one expansion, you conclude the
growth rate is 2.8%. And that measure is bogus. Of course, the true
growth rate is 3.4%. As with any periodic function, you must measure
over whole business cycles. To do otherwise introduces statistical
bias.
Irrelevant.
It is very relevant. When CATO used a pre-Reagan period that had two
recessions and one expansion they introduced a statistical bias exactly as
in my example.
See above.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
CATO made that mistake above. Over the one whole business cycle prior
to Reagan, 1Q75 to 3Q80, GDP grew at 3.4% per year. The post-WWII
average is 3.5%.
You throw alot of numbers around, but where do you get them and show how
calculated them.
My GDP numbers come from http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/home/gdplev.xls
One example calculation. Column "G" lists the inflation-adjusted GDP values
by quarter. To compute the GDP growth for the 22 quarters from 2Q75 to 3Q80
(the business cycle from the beginning of an expansion in 2Q75 through a
complete recession in 3Q80), add up the GDP for the 4 quarters that preceed
2Q75. That total is 17.18T. Now add up the 4 quarters ending in 3Q80.
1 - (20.65/17.18)^(4/22) = 3.4%
See above. But I will address this.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Early 50's: 5.7%
Mid 50's: 2.5%
Late 50's: 3.4%
60's: 4.5%
Early 70's: 2.6%
Late 70's: 3.4%
Reagan: 3.5%
Bush41/Clinton: 3.2%
There is no trend upward in the Reagan years. Supply side predicted a
spike to 4.4%. Didn't happen.
OK the prediction was off, but GDP went up in the 80's and the 90's. You
can't argue that higher taxes have no effect on the economy. Sorry.
You are more than welcome to live in fantasy land and conclude that there is
an upward trend in GDP in the 80's and 90's. Others viewing those numbers
can judge for themselves.
I will address this.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Inflation adjusted income tax revenues were lower in each of 1982-86
than they were in 1981 (the last pre-tax cut year). Are you claiming
that the deficit and debt would have been even larger than it actually
was if we didn't have the tax cut?
Yes because we would have never had the economic expansion that did occur
and continues to occur to this day. You probably can slice and dice the
80's
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
to prove anything you want, but the following from the CATO report is
Again, you are free to live in fantasy land and claim there would not have
been an expansion without the tax cut in the face of those GDP data above.
But you cannot deny that inflation-adjusted income tax revenues were lower
in each of 1982-86 than they were in 1981. And you are also free to repeat
the same incomplete, and therefore incorrect, CATO data all you want.
I will continue, since it is correct.
The data are not correct. They use projections (as they had to).
But, we know what the actuals are, and we should be using the actuals,
not the projections.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
You will never convince any person that actually produces income that
higher
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
taxes are better for the economy. Individuals will work harder at a 70%
tax
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
rate than at a 50% tax rate.
How much harder? Hard enough to make up for the increased debt which sucks
capital from private-sector investment? Maybe. Maybe not. It is an
empirically-answerable question. And as the data show, GDP did not grow
faster after the tax cut then it did before.
The increase debt is caused by increased spending. May I remind you that
interest rates were recently at record lows.
Yes, increased spending increases the debt. Cutting income tax rates
also increases the debt. This must be true unless economic growth
with the tax cut is much greater than economic growth without the tax
cut. And as the data above show, economic growth after the Reagan
cuts was the same as it was beforehand. That's the empirical
evidence.
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
The left doesn't want to believe this simply
because they want to be able to extract addition money from individuals
with
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
impunity.
You mean lefties like Greenspan who agrees with me?
Greenspan thinks tax rates should be 70%?
Greenspan believes that if you cut income tax rates, the debt will go
up compared to no tax cut (assuming anything you want about spending).

Josh Rosenbluth
Namara
2004-09-14 05:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Sorry. Please provide a reference for any credible supply side advocate who
claims spending can increase by any amount if tax rates are decreased. Your
statement is silly, and I'm not sure if you're just dumb or playing a
political card.
Good point but you can't "borrow" yourself into prosperity,you can
however"spend"your way into it.
R. Anton Rave
2004-09-08 15:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
But the supply-siders said spending could go up even with massive tax
cuts and not cause deficits, thanks to the elixier of free lunch
voodoo economics. Economists Jude Wanniski and Alfred Laffer said
this, and so did supply-side advocates Jack Kemp and William F.
Buckley. They all predicted that the proposed 30% tax cut would cause
both high economic growth and high increases in tax revenue - don't
you remember the "Laffer curve"? But when things didn't turn out that
way, their excuse was that the 30% tax cut had been implemented too
slowly, 10% a year for 3 years rather than all at once.
The voodoo supply-siders predicted high growth and government
surpluses.
Support? What a completely stupid statement.
The voodoo supply siders do make a lot of stupid statements.
Post by NoEd
Somebody said by cutting taxes the government could spend all
they want? Prove it.
That was the sales pitch behind radical supply-side economics - over
and over, its advocates said that taxes could be cut without any
sacrifices on the spending side, and that's why, in 1980, George Bush
coined the term "voodoo economics" to describe it.
Post by NoEd
I have Jude's book so I can look up your reference.
Only if everything he ever said was in that book. What I read came
from a newspaper inteview with him, probably either the NY Times or
Village Voice.
Post by NoEd
I have never heard Jack Kemp say that.
I heard him say it on a Sunday morning interview show when he was
running for President.
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
The fiscal conservatives (Peter Peterson & co.) and many liberals
predicted low growth and big government deficits.
Spending went up faster than revenue. Simple.
The voodoo supply siders said this wouldn't matter because the magic
elixer of massive tax cuts would boost revenue too much for it to be a
problem. It was sold as a free lunch.
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
A few mainstream Democratic economists, like Alice Rivlin and George
Schultz, and Michael Evans predicted decent growth and government
deficits. They were the only ones who got it right.
Prove it. Milton Friedman is not a mainstream economist? Wasn't Schultz
Reagan's secretary of state? You call Rivlin mainstream? Standard left
wing gibberish.
While Labor/Treasury/State Secretary George Schultz is an economist,
I'm referring to another George Schultz, the chief economic advisor in
the Carter administration. I heard him make his prediction on PBS'
Nightly Business Report.

Friedman was not a mainstream economist until the 1960s or 1970s, when
inflation seemed to get out of control and the definition of money
started to change. But his politics have been more libertarian than
conservative, and he has said he always favored tax cuts. He didn't
say that revenue would always rise to compensate for the cuts, and it
seemed that he thought of tax cuts as a good way to restrain
government spending.

Alice Rivlin is obviously a mainstream economist and was the first
head of the Congressional Budget Office and later served on the
Federal Reserve Board during Greenspan's tenure.
Post by NoEd
I always chuckle when the left calls someone whom they agree
with mainstream and all others "out of the mainstream."
This is irrelevant to this discussion. However the voodoo economists
were out of the mainstream until Reagan ran for President, and
previous to that were scoffed at by most conservative and liberal
economists.
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
The problem with voodoo supply-side practitioners is that they
assumes
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
every 1% cut in taxes results in a > 1% increase in revenue, but
economies behave that way only when the effective top tax rate is very
high, like the 80-104% rates Sweden once had (104% applied to people
who were both employed by a company and also self-employed), which
hasn't been the case in the U.S. since the 1940s (almost nobody really
paid the 70% top rate in effect before the Reagan cuts but more like
half that much). For the U.S., every 1% cut in taxes has resulted in
about a 0.3% decrease in revenue, and this happened even with the
Reagan tax cuts.
Not according to the Cato study and every other creditable study I
have seen. You are simply wrong and miss informed.
The Cato Institute is a radical libertarian group more interested in
spreading its doctrine than in getting out the truth and, like many
other partisan think tanks, is famous for issuing academically-sloppy
studies that would be rejected if they were college theses. The fact
remains that conventional economists of the left and right were right
about the 1980s tax cuts and that the others were wrong. Check Jackie
Vernon's THE TRUTH ABOUT SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS before he hurts himself
again.
Post by NoEd
You probably get you information from such sources as The Nation
and Moveon.org.
Only an ass makes baseless assumptions, and you've made a baseless
assumption.
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
Apparently your hindsight isn't 20/20.
My hindsight is just right. It is you who continue to deny reality.
Only a liberal like you could think that taxes are not too high,
i.e. someone will work just as hard and risk just as much at a say
50% tax rate as opposed to a 15% tax rate.
I know that you and Rush Limbaugh see the world with complete clarity,
so well that when someone disagrees with you, you know that they have
to be on the fringe left.
NoEd
2004-09-13 14:40:03 UTC
Permalink
You're sick.
Post by R. Anton Rave
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
But the supply-siders said spending could go up even with massive
tax
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
cuts and not cause deficits, thanks to the elixier of free lunch
voodoo economics. Economists Jude Wanniski and Alfred Laffer said
this, and so did supply-side advocates Jack Kemp and William F.
Buckley. They all predicted that the proposed 30% tax cut would
cause
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
both high economic growth and high increases in tax revenue - don't
you remember the "Laffer curve"? But when things didn't turn out
that
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
way, their excuse was that the 30% tax cut had been implemented too
slowly, 10% a year for 3 years rather than all at once.
The voodoo supply-siders predicted high growth and government
surpluses.
Support? What a completely stupid statement.
The voodoo supply siders do make a lot of stupid statements.
Post by NoEd
Somebody said by cutting taxes the government could spend all
they want? Prove it.
That was the sales pitch behind radical supply-side economics - over
and over, its advocates said that taxes could be cut without any
sacrifices on the spending side, and that's why, in 1980, George Bush
coined the term "voodoo economics" to describe it.
Post by NoEd
I have Jude's book so I can look up your reference.
Only if everything he ever said was in that book. What I read came
from a newspaper inteview with him, probably either the NY Times or
Village Voice.
Post by NoEd
I have never heard Jack Kemp say that.
I heard him say it on a Sunday morning interview show when he was
running for President.
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
The fiscal conservatives (Peter Peterson & co.) and many liberals
predicted low growth and big government deficits.
Spending went up faster than revenue. Simple.
The voodoo supply siders said this wouldn't matter because the magic
elixer of massive tax cuts would boost revenue too much for it to be a
problem. It was sold as a free lunch.
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
A few mainstream Democratic economists, like Alice Rivlin and George
Schultz, and Michael Evans predicted decent growth and government
deficits. They were the only ones who got it right.
Prove it. Milton Friedman is not a mainstream economist? Wasn't
Schultz
Post by NoEd
Reagan's secretary of state? You call Rivlin mainstream? Standard
left
Post by NoEd
wing gibberish.
While Labor/Treasury/State Secretary George Schultz is an economist,
I'm referring to another George Schultz, the chief economic advisor in
the Carter administration. I heard him make his prediction on PBS'
Nightly Business Report.
Friedman was not a mainstream economist until the 1960s or 1970s, when
inflation seemed to get out of control and the definition of money
started to change. But his politics have been more libertarian than
conservative, and he has said he always favored tax cuts. He didn't
say that revenue would always rise to compensate for the cuts, and it
seemed that he thought of tax cuts as a good way to restrain
government spending.
Alice Rivlin is obviously a mainstream economist and was the first
head of the Congressional Budget Office and later served on the
Federal Reserve Board during Greenspan's tenure.
Post by NoEd
I always chuckle when the left calls someone whom they agree
with mainstream and all others "out of the mainstream."
This is irrelevant to this discussion. However the voodoo economists
were out of the mainstream until Reagan ran for President, and
previous to that were scoffed at by most conservative and liberal
economists.
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
The problem with voodoo supply-side practitioners is that they
assumes
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
every 1% cut in taxes results in a > 1% increase in revenue, but
economies behave that way only when the effective top tax rate is
very
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
high, like the 80-104% rates Sweden once had (104% applied to people
who were both employed by a company and also self-employed), which
hasn't been the case in the U.S. since the 1940s (almost nobody
really
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
paid the 70% top rate in effect before the Reagan cuts but more like
half that much). For the U.S., every 1% cut in taxes has resulted
in
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
about a 0.3% decrease in revenue, and this happened even with the
Reagan tax cuts.
Not according to the Cato study and every other creditable study I
have seen. You are simply wrong and miss informed.
The Cato Institute is a radical libertarian group more interested in
spreading its doctrine than in getting out the truth and, like many
other partisan think tanks, is famous for issuing academically-sloppy
studies that would be rejected if they were college theses. The fact
remains that conventional economists of the left and right were right
about the 1980s tax cuts and that the others were wrong. Check Jackie
Vernon's THE TRUTH ABOUT SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS before he hurts himself
again.
Post by NoEd
You probably get you information from such sources as The Nation
and Moveon.org.
Only an ass makes baseless assumptions, and you've made a baseless
assumption.
Post by NoEd
Post by R. Anton Rave
Apparently your hindsight isn't 20/20.
My hindsight is just right. It is you who continue to deny reality.
Only a liberal like you could think that taxes are not too high,
i.e. someone will work just as hard and risk just as much at a say
50% tax rate as opposed to a 15% tax rate.
I know that you and Rush Limbaugh see the world with complete clarity,
so well that when someone disagrees with you, you know that they have
to be on the fringe left.
Josh Rosenbluth
2004-09-07 12:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
But what about the other key supply-side claim: that Reagan's tax cut
actually increased federal tax revenues? A close look at the data shows
that it didn't. Instead, what boosted Federal tax revenues during the
1980's was not individual income taxes but payroll taxes (the tax taken
out of your paycheck to pay for Social Security and Medicare). What
caused the 4.3% average growth in payroll tax revenues was not a tax cut
but a big tax increase, the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Try
explaining that with supply-side theory.
a.. Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s
from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal
revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax
revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.
Real income tax revenues were lower in each of the first 5 years
(fiscal 1982-86) after the Reagan tax cut than it was the year before
the tax cut (1981).
Support?
Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf

Table 2.1 lists the nominal income tax revenues (both personal and
corporate). Table 1.3 lists the inflation adjustment factors (under
the column heading "Addendum: Composite Deflator"). To get the real
income tax figures, take the nominal values and divide by the
inflation adjustment factors.
Post by NoEd
Moreover, the supply-side claim isn't that
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
revenue would eventually (in this case 6 years out) recover to pre-tax
cut levels.
Support?
Support for what? That supply side didn't claim revenue would
eventually recover (you can't have a citation for something that
wasn't claimed, only for things claimed)? Or that it took 6 years for
income tax revenue to recover (see above)?
Post by NoEd
It is that the deficit and debt would not be negatively
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
impacted by the tax cut.
It wasn't, except that spending went up.
The impact of a tax cut on the deficit and debt is actual revenue
(with the tax cut) minus what revenue would have been without the tax
cut. That calculation is independent of spending.
Post by NoEd
By the way I will concede some of
that spending went into bankrupting the Soviets. Not a bad return on
investment?
Maybe it was necessary, maybe not. I have no idea. What I do know is
that you don't expand the military while cutting taxes and expect
anything but an explosion in debt (are you listening, Mr. Bush)?
Post by NoEd
For supply not to be right, individuals must not response to incentives.
Otherwise it is correct.
No. The degree of the response is the key and that is an empirical
question. How much harder do people work when their tax rates are
lowered from 40 to 35%? You have no idea, and neither do I without
looking at the data. And the data from Reagan and Bush are clear.
The effect is small and not nearly enough to make up for the revenue
lost directly from lower tax rates.

Josh Rosenbluth
Last2Know
2004-09-07 11:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We can increase revenues by reducing taxes. It happened under Reagan.
That's a myth propagated by supply side kooks. It was
predicted to work and failed miserably under Reagan, leading
Reagan himself to sign off on a tax increase. The claim has
been tested again and failed again under Bush.
Then then a tax rate of 100% will yield the highest take for the government?
But you and I both know that is not true.
Right. Nobody claims that.
Post by NoEd
By common sense there is an
optimal tax rate that will generate the most tax revenue.
Other things being equal.
What other things?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are far above
that rate,
What evidence do you have for this claim?
The fact that supply side economics works.
It hasn't worked. The claim that it has is
based on twisted readings of the facts by
self-interested right-wing groups. Mainstream
economists are clear on the fact that it didn't
work and also on why it didn't work.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
and yes supply side worked under Reagan.
It did not work to increase tax revenue.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM
http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/23More.htm
http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/rushmore.html
If supply-siders were right, the Reagan tax cut would have been followed
by spikes in how much people saved,
Not necessarily. Do you consider investment in the stock market saving?
Yes. Do you have an argument based on this?
Post by NoEd
how many hours they worked, and how
Post by Last2Know
productive they were.
Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew
much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years
Cato is known as an ultra-conservative think tank so they have some
bias regarding Reagan and supply side economics.
As noted below, other studies of apparently the same question by
Brookings, the Federal Reserve, and the Univ. of California came to the
opposite conclusion. We would need to know more about how the numbers were
compiled to resolve this discrepancy. Also, we know from common sense
that the marginal cost of each additional hour worked goes up beyond a
certain point ("people need time for their lives") so I have questions
about the underlying premises of looking at population
growth rates in hours worked rather than tracking individual behavior.
Post by NoEd
But none of these spikes happened. Savings rates
Post by Last2Know
actually declined during Reagan's term, in spite of tax incentives for
saving.4 People did not work longer hours in response to tax cuts - a
finding replicated in major independent studies from the Brookings
Institute, the Federal Reserve, and the University of California.
And
Post by Last2Know
productivity growth rates remained sluggish. (Indeed, the numbers from
productivity growth dropped pretty much in lockstep with marginal tax
rates. Productivity growth took off in the mid-1990s - after Clinton's
tax hike. I'm not arguing for cause and effect - I think it was
coincidence - but it does show that supply-side thinking is too simple
to fit the real world.)
a.. Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the
past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity
growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as
shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but
much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has
increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst
presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.
Again, Cato differs from other people's numbers.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
But what about the other key supply-side claim: that Reagan's tax cut
actually increased federal tax revenues? A close look at the data shows
that it didn't. Instead, what boosted Federal tax revenues during the
1980's was not individual income taxes but payroll taxes (the tax taken
out of your paycheck to pay for Social Security and Medicare). What
caused the 4.3% average growth in payroll tax revenues was not a tax cut
but a big tax increase, the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Try
explaining that with supply-side theory.
a.. Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s
from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal
revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax
revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.
You haven't proved anything and your response is beside the point.
The increase in tax revenues during Reagan are largely explained
by a *tax increase*. The rest is explained by the normal
business cycle and the lowering of interest rates.
Post by NoEd
No matter how bad you want to believe, captialism is based on incentives.
The more of the money the earners of the money can keep, the more they will
work. Very simple, very old, and very true.
I don't doubt that the principle is true - other things being equal
(and there are historical counterexamples to it when other things
apparently were not equal) - but it is a different thing entirely
from saying that tax cuts lead to an increase in tax revenues.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Similarly, corporate tax revenues plummeted after Reagan's tax cut - in
contradiction to the "cut taxes, increase revenue" ideal. Corporate tax
revenue surged only after the 1986 tax-reform law, which got rid of a
lot of tax-sheltering opportunities. This broadened the base of what
gets taxed, and thus allowed Congress to reduce the top corporate tax
rate without losing revenues. But for a number of corporations, the act
did not lower taxes. In fact, it limited depreciation deductions,
eliminated the investment tax credit, and strengthened the "alternative
minimum tax." Popular tax-sheltering approaches suddenly became useless
or illegal.
Do you dispute any of the above? Is so, based on what?
See my comments.
You didn't comment on the decline in corporate tax revenue.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
We need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of
the healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp. less
direct spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs. Healthcare
is not a right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required to pay for
your own private security force? How about defense? Why am I
required to pay taxes to support sending cruise missles hither and
thither and having my neighbors get blown up by suicide bombers in
Iraq?
Policing is a function of government as is national defense. Bad example.
Why is it bad example? What exactly defines policing as a function of
government and excludes contributing to the medical well being of the
citizens? I'm not actually in favor of a national health service
but I think the question is a legitimate one.
Role of government. Don't get stupid on me.
I don't see any argument here. You are just restating an opinion.
I still don't see a response.
Still waiting....
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
The solution is tocut spending and reduce taxes. Society is way overtaxed.
Simple but not easy.
This sort of voodoo economics has been debunked time and again by
professional economists. It just doesn't work. It would be great if
it did, but sadly, it's a right wing fantasy.
Milton Friedman? Is there a tax rate too high? What is the overrall
incremental tax rate you claim is too high. 50% 60% 90% 99%. Please let me
know.
According to what criteria? Moral? Economic? Give me a context for
your question.
I gave you a "professional" economist.
Milton Friedman doesn't support supply-siders. I'm not sure
what you are driving at.
Milton Friedman doesn't support high taxes. Please show where he supports
high taxes.
It's not controversial to say that 90% taxation is too high.
You don't need to invoke Milton Friedman as a talisman is that
is the only claim you are making here.
Post by NoEd
I worked with Reagan.
By your own logic then, as I understand it, your point of view is
biased and your arguments on this topic are suspect.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
But you didn't answer the
question: what is a too high incremental tax rate?
I'm not ducking. I'm asking what basis you want me to use for that
question? Are you asking for my gut feeling about the highest
incremental tax rate based purely on concepts of fairness?
I'll say 43%. If you are asking based on the Laffer Curve,
I think it is a much higher number than that, at least if it kicks
in at a high enough threshold.
Between state, local, federal, SS, Medicare, and other taxes, the
incremental rate is higher than 43%.
We were talking about Federal Income Tax. I actually got to
43% by starting at 50% and backing out SS&FUTA&Medicare (in
round numbers). Of course we know that State tax rates
vary widely by state and state taxes are typically deducted
by people in the higher tax brackets.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Most NIH funding is pissed away. It should be tabled and a new model
should be created. It is far too political.
What's your basis for claiming that most NIH funding is pissed
away? What's your definition of pissed away? What do
you mean by it being political? Grants are based on scientific
peer review by people unaffiliated with the applicant.
http://www.nurseweek.com/features/98-9/fund.html
This article is not supporting support for the claim that most
NIH funding is pissed away.
Post by NoEd
You're a fool, but not if you benefit form these grants.
???
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised while
maintaining levels of expenditure for things like defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised". Social
security payments that keep pace with inflation is an example of a
big part of the Federal budget that has been promised. You know
that we have a graduated income tax rate, but we have a
non-graduated payroll tax rate that kicks in for all salaried
people before income/withholding tax even applies. We take the
same 7.6% from each person and also from their employer no matter
what their income or means and we tell them that this is mostly for
their future social security payments. The govt. could cancel
those future payments, but then it would have lied to all those
people and taken money from them by force on false pretenses.
The President laid out a plan for SS. Alan Greenspan has indicated
that "promised" payments cannot be maintained.
Neutral analysts have said that Bush's numbers don't add up on this
topic. Greenspan's comments are partly taking Bush's tax cuts into
account.
Please. The tax cuts are the solution.
You keep restating this opinion with any evidence or argument, as
though it is just a matter of religious faith.
See above. Do I have to prove that letting peope keep the money they
earned is moral?
I'd like it if you would follow the argument more closely
and make it clear where you are making a moral argument and
where you are making a practical one. You started above by
claiming tax cuts could fix the problem of future unbalances
in the social security system, and when I question you about
it you are responding with a vague moral claim against all
taxation.
They are the same.
Here are two arguments:

1) "Taxes should be reduced/eliminated because they are immoral"
2) "Taxes should be reduced/eliminated because that will increase
the amount of tax revenue collected by the Federal government"

How are those arguments the same?
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Lets see if we agree on something easy. The Dept. of Education
needs be eliminated Do you agree?
I agree that it is a bad dept. Just saying "elminiate" it
irresponsible however. The Federal govt. does have a role to play in
trying to see to it that every child has an opportunity to get a high
quality education.
No. Parents do. It is at best a local issue.
Lots of children are born to terrible, irresponsible parents in broken
homes. Are you saying that the govt. should ignore them?
Direct federal yes. But these is an extreme cases. You know we are not
talking about the extreme cases. May be you can help me out, what
should the government do when children are born to terrible,
irresponsible parents in broken homes?
One thing the govt. tries to do is make sure they go to grade
school.
Really.
Sure does. Schools districts not meeting minimal hrs/week and
attendance standards would not receive funding.
Post by NoEd
Another thing it tries to do is make sure those schools
Post by Last2Know
meet some minimal standards.
Could these be applied to private schools?
Theoretically yes. It might be expensive to check
in practice if the number of different schools and
distinct curricula to examine balloons.
Post by NoEd
A third thing the dept. of education
Post by Last2Know
does is offer loans to pay for post-grade school education for
applicants who qualify based on both achievement and need.
The department is a complete waste of money.
Why are college loans to students a complete waste of
money? Most economists regard education as a good public
investment.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
So which of those things are you against and what do you
want to replace them with.
I not locked into that we need a dept of education.
Neither am I. But how about answering the question?
This part of the thread is entirely on your chosen
example of abolishing the Dept. of Education, so
I expect you to be a little more forthcoming with proposals
to replace its more significant functions.
Post by NoEd
The government should
not be in the business of handing out scholarships.
Who said anything about scholarships?
Post by NoEd
It sounds like you are saying
Post by Last2Know
that parents do those things in most all cases and the cases
where they don't are too sporadic for the govt. to worry about.
Is that your position?
Did I say that? I said that the federal gov should not be in the business
of education. Clear?
Not clear. You said you want to abolish the Dept. of Education
and I'm asking you what will replace its functions. If your
answer is "nothing" then we can talk about that.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are miles apart. I see the individual and family as the basic unit
of society. You fear freedom and wealth.
Bullshit.
You think taxing the rich is the solution. I don't. Its not BS.
I don't know what "taxing the rich is the solution" means.
I do know you said "You fear freedom and wealth" and that
is bullshit.
Taxing the rich and government proferring assistance is your plank.
I'm not a political party and I don't have a plank.
My purpose here is to counteract your spread of irresponsible
nonsense and disinformation about economics and government.
Post by NoEd
This is
the opposite of freedom and wealth. How are you going to have freedom and
wealth with high taxes?
You claim that the U.S. has had high taxes before.
Kerry doesn't support taxes that exceed previous levels.
Are you trying to say then that the U.S. has never
been wealthy or had freedom? Most all of your
"arguments" seem to devolve into either unsupported
opinion or nonsensical rubbish.
Post by NoEd
Impossible. Illogical. Inconsistent.
See above.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
I fear government. I see the
govenment as being very limited in what it can do.
Then your philosophy is very different from G.W. Bush who apparently
wants to use our armed forces to teach the world about democracy.
Really. Prove it. I didn't here that at all.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
You can skip the fluff at the top and read down to the last
eight paragraphs.
It just so happens that exporting and teaching demacracy is an excellent
defense policy. It is far more powerful than bullets and bombs. Hell, Reagan
won the cold war without firing a shot.
What we are talking about in Iraq is bullets and bombs, and
very expensive ones at that. Both in terms of money and life.
We are still taking over 1000 casualties per month there with
no end in sight. Do you also support similar "teaching"
in Syria or Iran during a Bush second term?
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
You sound like a person who works as a government employee or relies
on the government.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. in some way. I am not a govt.
employee, but don't see why my arguments would be any less valid if I
was.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. Sure. Defense, Courts, Police,
Fire. Your statement means nothing.
It makes a difference. Perspective is everything. There is no doubt
your face is deep in the public trough.
So you're saying that anybody who actually works on Defense, Courts,
Police, Fire, etc. can't voice valid arguments in a debate about
taxes because their professional affiliation makes their point
of view biased and suspect?? By the same logic, all politicians
therefore are suspect and shouldn't speak on these topics.
It is highly unlikely your living is not made almost exclusively from
government. Of course they can voice valid arguements, but people argue
what's in their best self interest (Can you dispute that?). Knowing that
perspecitive is important. Politicians at least in theory are accountable to
the voters. Folks like you are not. You will always come up with a "need"
to spend other people's money.
Why don't you just be honest, you like government because you make your
living off government. One thing I have learned debating guys like you, I
have experience since I have many friends that attended Berkeley, is that
they have an underlying superiority complex since they have deluded
themselves into believing they don't act based on self interest. What a
bunch a crap! Believe or not there are Mensas who are conservative and are
going to vote for GWB. Ain't that strange?
You don't know anything about me so you flail about widly
with ad hominem attacks hoping something will stick.

My wife and I both work and half our income from last
year was from investments. If we sat down with my
income tax, it would be obvious to you that I don't
have an economic bias against the Bush tax cuts.
So take your stupid cultural war, and your false
economic pseudo-religion, and jam up your ass, you
ignorant, lame, Reaganite, scumbag.
Post by NoEd
Can you name one social program that needs eliminating?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Your basic arguement is to tax the rich so money will be avaliable for
politically motivated alternatives, e.g. save the whales, help the
children, build a new road, fund research, etc.
"Save the whales" is some sort of anti-liberal bogeyman that has
nothing to do with govt. and doesn't belong in this discussion.
Now please tell me why helping children, building and maintaining
roads, and funding research count as "politically motivated"
alternatives why defense spending and corporate welfare do
not.
Post by NoEd
That philosphy is both
immoral and, worse, bankrupt in its effect.
You just spout moral non-sequiturs at every gap in the
text without a shred of reason or coherency.
You're like a big gas balloon with a leak, darting around
in the wind.
Post by NoEd
My arguement is simple: taxes kill economies, regulations kill economies,
It's a matter of getting the right proportions, and also
a matter of balancing fairness and efficiency. Those
are not simple matters.
Who decides this? What is "fair?" Government? Give me a break.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
wealth is best for the environment
Meaning, according to you, that lower marginal tax
rates will help avoid pollution?? You've lost
me here.
Do richer countries have better environmental records as compared to poor
countries? If you don't have food, you really don't care about the
environment.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
governement should be
limited to those functions it best handles
Agree, if what you mean by that is the government
should only handle functions where it is the best
candidate to do so.
Post by NoEd
taxes to pay for those
function not best provided by government are immoral, parents should
have the option of sending there children to any school.
I support school vouchers in principle, but not as a ruse
to change the standards of publicly supported curriculum
in favor of religious curriculum or to take money out of
needy areas, or to provide a perk to people who don't
need it.
The areas where money should most be diverted to private schools is areas in
need. I have always trusted Sister Susan as opposed to administrator Al.
RalphNader 2004
2004-09-07 12:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Does Kerry's plan call for raising taxes?
Yes or no will suffice.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We can increase revenues by reducing taxes. It happened under Reagan.
That's a myth propagated by supply side kooks. It was
predicted to work and failed miserably under Reagan, leading
Reagan himself to sign off on a tax increase. The claim has
been tested again and failed again under Bush.
Then then a tax rate of 100% will yield the highest take for the government?
But you and I both know that is not true.
Right. Nobody claims that.
Post by NoEd
By common sense there is an
optimal tax rate that will generate the most tax revenue.
Other things being equal.
What other things?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are far above
that rate,
What evidence do you have for this claim?
The fact that supply side economics works.
It hasn't worked. The claim that it has is
based on twisted readings of the facts by
self-interested right-wing groups. Mainstream
economists are clear on the fact that it didn't
work and also on why it didn't work.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
and yes supply side worked under Reagan.
It did not work to increase tax revenue.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM
http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/23More.htm
http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/rushmore.html
If supply-siders were right, the Reagan tax cut would have been followed
by spikes in how much people saved,
Not necessarily. Do you consider investment in the stock market saving?
Yes. Do you have an argument based on this?
Post by NoEd
how many hours they worked, and how
Post by Last2Know
productive they were.
Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew
much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years
Cato is known as an ultra-conservative think tank so they have some
bias regarding Reagan and supply side economics.
As noted below, other studies of apparently the same question by
Brookings, the Federal Reserve, and the Univ. of California came to the
opposite conclusion. We would need to know more about how the numbers were
compiled to resolve this discrepancy. Also, we know from common sense
that the marginal cost of each additional hour worked goes up beyond a
certain point ("people need time for their lives") so I have questions
about the underlying premises of looking at population
growth rates in hours worked rather than tracking individual behavior.
Post by NoEd
But none of these spikes happened. Savings rates
Post by Last2Know
actually declined during Reagan's term, in spite of tax incentives for
saving.4 People did not work longer hours in response to tax cuts - a
finding replicated in major independent studies from the Brookings
Institute, the Federal Reserve, and the University of California.
And
Post by Last2Know
productivity growth rates remained sluggish. (Indeed, the numbers from
productivity growth dropped pretty much in lockstep with marginal tax
rates. Productivity growth took off in the mid-1990s - after Clinton's
tax hike. I'm not arguing for cause and effect - I think it was
coincidence - but it does show that supply-side thinking is too simple
to fit the real world.)
a.. Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the
past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S.
productivity
growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as
shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but
much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has
increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst
presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.
Again, Cato differs from other people's numbers.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
But what about the other key supply-side claim: that Reagan's tax cut
actually increased federal tax revenues? A close look at the data shows
that it didn't. Instead, what boosted Federal tax revenues during the
1980's was not individual income taxes but payroll taxes (the tax taken
out of your paycheck to pay for Social Security and Medicare). What
caused the 4.3% average growth in payroll tax revenues was not a tax cut
but a big tax increase, the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Try
explaining that with supply-side theory.
a.. Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s
from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal
revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax
revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.
You haven't proved anything and your response is beside the point.
The increase in tax revenues during Reagan are largely explained
by a *tax increase*. The rest is explained by the normal
business cycle and the lowering of interest rates.
Post by NoEd
No matter how bad you want to believe, captialism is based on incentives.
The more of the money the earners of the money can keep, the more they will
work. Very simple, very old, and very true.
I don't doubt that the principle is true - other things being equal
(and there are historical counterexamples to it when other things
apparently were not equal) - but it is a different thing entirely
from saying that tax cuts lead to an increase in tax revenues.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Similarly, corporate tax revenues plummeted after Reagan's tax cut - in
contradiction to the "cut taxes, increase revenue" ideal. Corporate tax
revenue surged only after the 1986 tax-reform law, which got rid of a
lot of tax-sheltering opportunities. This broadened the base of what
gets taxed, and thus allowed Congress to reduce the top corporate tax
rate without losing revenues. But for a number of corporations, the act
did not lower taxes. In fact, it limited depreciation deductions,
eliminated the investment tax credit, and strengthened the "alternative
minimum tax." Popular tax-sheltering approaches suddenly became useless
or illegal.
Do you dispute any of the above? Is so, based on what?
See my comments.
You didn't comment on the decline in corporate tax revenue.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
We need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of
the healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp. less
direct spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs. Healthcare
is not a right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required to pay for
your own private security force? How about defense? Why am I
required to pay taxes to support sending cruise missles hither and
thither and having my neighbors get blown up by suicide bombers in
Iraq?
Policing is a function of government as is national defense. Bad example.
Why is it bad example? What exactly defines policing as a function of
government and excludes contributing to the medical well being of the
citizens? I'm not actually in favor of a national health service
but I think the question is a legitimate one.
Role of government. Don't get stupid on me.
I don't see any argument here. You are just restating an opinion.
I still don't see a response.
Still waiting....
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
The solution is tocut spending and reduce taxes. Society is way overtaxed.
Simple but not easy.
This sort of voodoo economics has been debunked time and again by
professional economists. It just doesn't work. It would be great if
it did, but sadly, it's a right wing fantasy.
Milton Friedman? Is there a tax rate too high? What is the overrall
incremental tax rate you claim is too high. 50% 60% 90% 99%. Please let me
know.
According to what criteria? Moral? Economic? Give me a context for
your question.
I gave you a "professional" economist.
Milton Friedman doesn't support supply-siders. I'm not sure
what you are driving at.
Milton Friedman doesn't support high taxes. Please show where he supports
high taxes.
It's not controversial to say that 90% taxation is too high.
You don't need to invoke Milton Friedman as a talisman is that
is the only claim you are making here.
Post by NoEd
I worked with Reagan.
By your own logic then, as I understand it, your point of view is
biased and your arguments on this topic are suspect.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
But you didn't answer the
question: what is a too high incremental tax rate?
I'm not ducking. I'm asking what basis you want me to use for that
question? Are you asking for my gut feeling about the highest
incremental tax rate based purely on concepts of fairness?
I'll say 43%. If you are asking based on the Laffer Curve,
I think it is a much higher number than that, at least if it kicks
in at a high enough threshold.
Between state, local, federal, SS, Medicare, and other taxes, the
incremental rate is higher than 43%.
We were talking about Federal Income Tax. I actually got to
43% by starting at 50% and backing out SS&FUTA&Medicare (in
round numbers). Of course we know that State tax rates
vary widely by state and state taxes are typically deducted
by people in the higher tax brackets.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Most NIH funding is pissed away. It should be tabled and a new model
should be created. It is far too political.
What's your basis for claiming that most NIH funding is pissed
away? What's your definition of pissed away? What do
you mean by it being political? Grants are based on scientific
peer review by people unaffiliated with the applicant.
http://www.nurseweek.com/features/98-9/fund.html
This article is not supporting support for the claim that most
NIH funding is pissed away.
Post by NoEd
You're a fool, but not if you benefit form these grants.
???
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised while
maintaining levels of expenditure for things like defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised". Social
security payments that keep pace with inflation is an example of a
big part of the Federal budget that has been promised. You know
that we have a graduated income tax rate, but we have a
non-graduated payroll tax rate that kicks in for all salaried
people before income/withholding tax even applies. We take the
same 7.6% from each person and also from their employer no matter
what their income or means and we tell them that this is mostly for
their future social security payments. The govt. could cancel
those future payments, but then it would have lied to all those
people and taken money from them by force on false pretenses.
The President laid out a plan for SS. Alan Greenspan has indicated
that "promised" payments cannot be maintained.
Neutral analysts have said that Bush's numbers don't add up on this
topic. Greenspan's comments are partly taking Bush's tax cuts into
account.
Please. The tax cuts are the solution.
You keep restating this opinion with any evidence or argument, as
though it is just a matter of religious faith.
See above. Do I have to prove that letting peope keep the money they
earned is moral?
I'd like it if you would follow the argument more closely
and make it clear where you are making a moral argument and
where you are making a practical one. You started above by
claiming tax cuts could fix the problem of future unbalances
in the social security system, and when I question you about
it you are responding with a vague moral claim against all
taxation.
They are the same.
1) "Taxes should be reduced/eliminated because they are immoral"
2) "Taxes should be reduced/eliminated because that will increase
the amount of tax revenue collected by the Federal government"
How are those arguments the same?
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Lets see if we agree on something easy. The Dept. of Education
needs be eliminated Do you agree?
I agree that it is a bad dept. Just saying "elminiate" it
irresponsible however. The Federal govt. does have a role to play in
trying to see to it that every child has an opportunity to get a high
quality education.
No. Parents do. It is at best a local issue.
Lots of children are born to terrible, irresponsible parents in broken
homes. Are you saying that the govt. should ignore them?
Direct federal yes. But these is an extreme cases. You know we are not
talking about the extreme cases. May be you can help me out, what
should the government do when children are born to terrible,
irresponsible parents in broken homes?
One thing the govt. tries to do is make sure they go to grade
school.
Really.
Sure does. Schools districts not meeting minimal hrs/week and
attendance standards would not receive funding.
Post by NoEd
Another thing it tries to do is make sure those schools
Post by Last2Know
meet some minimal standards.
Could these be applied to private schools?
Theoretically yes. It might be expensive to check
in practice if the number of different schools and
distinct curricula to examine balloons.
Post by NoEd
A third thing the dept. of education
Post by Last2Know
does is offer loans to pay for post-grade school education for
applicants who qualify based on both achievement and need.
The department is a complete waste of money.
Why are college loans to students a complete waste of
money? Most economists regard education as a good public
investment.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
So which of those things are you against and what do you
want to replace them with.
I not locked into that we need a dept of education.
Neither am I. But how about answering the question?
This part of the thread is entirely on your chosen
example of abolishing the Dept. of Education, so
I expect you to be a little more forthcoming with proposals
to replace its more significant functions.
Post by NoEd
The government should
not be in the business of handing out scholarships.
Who said anything about scholarships?
Post by NoEd
It sounds like you are saying
Post by Last2Know
that parents do those things in most all cases and the cases
where they don't are too sporadic for the govt. to worry about.
Is that your position?
Did I say that? I said that the federal gov should not be in the business
of education. Clear?
Not clear. You said you want to abolish the Dept. of Education
and I'm asking you what will replace its functions. If your
answer is "nothing" then we can talk about that.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are miles apart. I see the individual and family as the basic unit
of society. You fear freedom and wealth.
Bullshit.
You think taxing the rich is the solution. I don't. Its not BS.
I don't know what "taxing the rich is the solution" means.
I do know you said "You fear freedom and wealth" and that
is bullshit.
Taxing the rich and government proferring assistance is your plank.
I'm not a political party and I don't have a plank.
My purpose here is to counteract your spread of irresponsible
nonsense and disinformation about economics and government.
Post by NoEd
This is
the opposite of freedom and wealth. How are you going to have freedom and
wealth with high taxes?
You claim that the U.S. has had high taxes before.
Kerry doesn't support taxes that exceed previous levels.
Are you trying to say then that the U.S. has never
been wealthy or had freedom? Most all of your
"arguments" seem to devolve into either unsupported
opinion or nonsensical rubbish.
Post by NoEd
Impossible. Illogical. Inconsistent.
See above.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
I fear government. I see the
govenment as being very limited in what it can do.
Then your philosophy is very different from G.W. Bush who apparently
wants to use our armed forces to teach the world about democracy.
Really. Prove it. I didn't here that at all.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
You can skip the fluff at the top and read down to the last
eight paragraphs.
It just so happens that exporting and teaching demacracy is an excellent
defense policy. It is far more powerful than bullets and bombs. Hell, Reagan
won the cold war without firing a shot.
What we are talking about in Iraq is bullets and bombs, and
very expensive ones at that. Both in terms of money and life.
We are still taking over 1000 casualties per month there with
no end in sight. Do you also support similar "teaching"
in Syria or Iran during a Bush second term?
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
You sound like a person who works as a government employee or relies
on the government.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. in some way. I am not a govt.
employee, but don't see why my arguments would be any less valid if I
was.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. Sure. Defense, Courts, Police,
Fire. Your statement means nothing.
It makes a difference. Perspective is everything. There is no doubt
your face is deep in the public trough.
So you're saying that anybody who actually works on Defense, Courts,
Police, Fire, etc. can't voice valid arguments in a debate about
taxes because their professional affiliation makes their point
of view biased and suspect?? By the same logic, all politicians
therefore are suspect and shouldn't speak on these topics.
It is highly unlikely your living is not made almost exclusively from
government. Of course they can voice valid arguements, but people argue
what's in their best self interest (Can you dispute that?). Knowing that
perspecitive is important. Politicians at least in theory are accountable to
the voters. Folks like you are not. You will always come up with a "need"
to spend other people's money.
Why don't you just be honest, you like government because you make your
living off government. One thing I have learned debating guys like you, I
have experience since I have many friends that attended Berkeley, is that
they have an underlying superiority complex since they have deluded
themselves into believing they don't act based on self interest. What a
bunch a crap! Believe or not there are Mensas who are conservative and are
going to vote for GWB. Ain't that strange?
You don't know anything about me so you flail about widly
with ad hominem attacks hoping something will stick.
My wife and I both work and half our income from last
year was from investments. If we sat down with my
income tax, it would be obvious to you that I don't
have an economic bias against the Bush tax cuts.
So take your stupid cultural war, and your false
economic pseudo-religion, and jam up your ass, you
ignorant, lame, Reaganite, scumbag.
Post by NoEd
Can you name one social program that needs eliminating?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Your basic arguement is to tax the rich so money will be avaliable for
politically motivated alternatives, e.g. save the whales, help the
children, build a new road, fund research, etc.
"Save the whales" is some sort of anti-liberal bogeyman that has
nothing to do with govt. and doesn't belong in this discussion.
Now please tell me why helping children, building and maintaining
roads, and funding research count as "politically motivated"
alternatives why defense spending and corporate welfare do
not.
Post by NoEd
That philosphy is both
immoral and, worse, bankrupt in its effect.
You just spout moral non-sequiturs at every gap in the
text without a shred of reason or coherency.
You're like a big gas balloon with a leak, darting around
in the wind.
Post by NoEd
My arguement is simple: taxes kill economies, regulations kill economies,
It's a matter of getting the right proportions, and also
a matter of balancing fairness and efficiency. Those
are not simple matters.
Who decides this? What is "fair?" Government? Give me a break.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
wealth is best for the environment
Meaning, according to you, that lower marginal tax
rates will help avoid pollution?? You've lost
me here.
Do richer countries have better environmental records as compared to poor
countries? If you don't have food, you really don't care about the
environment.
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
governement should be
limited to those functions it best handles
Agree, if what you mean by that is the government
should only handle functions where it is the best
candidate to do so.
Post by NoEd
taxes to pay for those
function not best provided by government are immoral, parents should
have the option of sending there children to any school.
I support school vouchers in principle, but not as a ruse
to change the standards of publicly supported curriculum
in favor of religious curriculum or to take money out of
needy areas, or to provide a perk to people who don't
need it.
The areas where money should most be diverted to private schools is areas in
need. I have always trusted Sister Susan as opposed to administrator Al.
Peter Pan
2004-09-07 12:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by RalphNader 2004
Does Kerry's plan call for raising taxes?
Yes or no will suffice.
Privately, YES

for public use trying to scam voters, no
Last2Know
2004-09-07 13:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by RalphNader 2004
Does Kerry's plan call for raising taxes?
Yes or no will suffice.
Yes and no.
In Kerry's speeches, he has called for raising taxes
on incomes over $200,000. On his web site he claims:

When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down.
Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American
businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

Bush has unbalanced the budget, lied to Congress about
his spending plans, and if you can find any significant
cuts described on Bush's website, you are better at
searching it than me.

http://www.georgewbush.com/

Frankly, both of them are talking fluff and not
willing to tell voters exactly what they will do.
Post by RalphNader 2004
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
We can increase revenues by reducing taxes. It happened under Reagan.
That's a myth propagated by supply side kooks. It was predicted
to work and failed miserably under Reagan, leading Reagan himself
to sign off on a tax increase. The claim has been tested again
and failed again under Bush.
Then then a tax rate of 100% will yield the highest take for the government?
But you and I both know that is not true.
Right. Nobody claims that.
Post by NoEd
By common sense there is an
optimal tax rate that will generate the most tax revenue.
Other things being equal.
What other things?
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are far above
that rate,
What evidence do you have for this claim?
The fact that supply side economics works.
It hasn't worked. The claim that it has is based on twisted readings
of the facts by self-interested right-wing groups. Mainstream
economists are clear on the fact that it didn't work and also on why
it didn't work.
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
and yes supply side worked under Reagan.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM
http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/23More.htm
http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/rushmore.html
If supply-siders were right, the Reagan tax cut would have been followed
by spikes in how much people saved,
Not necessarily. Do you consider investment in the stock market saving?
Yes. Do you have an argument based on this?
Post by NoEd
how many hours they worked, and how
productive they were.
Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew
much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years
Cato is known as an ultra-conservative think tank so they have some
bias regarding Reagan and supply side economics. As noted below, other
studies of apparently the same question by Brookings, the Federal
Reserve, and the Univ. of California came to the opposite conclusion.
We would need to know more about how the numbers were compiled to
resolve this discrepancy. Also, we know from common sense that the
marginal cost of each additional hour worked goes up beyond a certain
point ("people need time for their lives") so I have questions about
the underlying premises of looking at population growth rates in hours
worked rather than tracking individual behavior.
Post by NoEd
But none of these spikes happened. Savings rates
actually declined during Reagan's term, in spite of tax incentives
for saving.4 People did not work longer hours in response to tax
cuts - a finding replicated in major independent studies from the
Brookings Institute, the Federal Reserve, and the University of
California.
And
productivity growth rates remained sluggish. (Indeed, the numbers
from 1951 and 1995 show the opposite of what supply-side theory
predicts: productivity growth dropped pretty much in lockstep with
marginal tax rates. Productivity growth took off in the mid-1990s -
after Clinton's tax hike. I'm not arguing for cause and effect - I
think it was coincidence - but it does show that supply-side
thinking is too simple to fit the real world.)
a.. Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the
past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity
growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate,
as shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and
1970s but much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton,
productivity has
increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst
presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.
Again, Cato differs from other people's numbers.
Post by NoEd
But what about the other key supply-side claim: that Reagan's tax
cut actually increased federal tax revenues? A close look at the
data shows that it didn't. Instead, what boosted Federal tax
revenues during the 1980's was not individual income taxes but
payroll taxes (the tax taken out of your paycheck to pay for Social
Security and Medicare). What caused the 4.3% average growth in
payroll tax revenues was not a tax
cut
but a big tax increase, the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Try
explaining that with supply-side theory.
a.. Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the
1980s from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real
federal revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however,
federal tax revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.
You haven't proved anything and your response is beside the point. The
increase in tax revenues during Reagan are largely explained by a *tax
increase*. The rest is explained by the normal business cycle and the
lowering of interest rates.
Post by NoEd
No matter how bad you want to believe, captialism is based on
incentives. The more of the money the earners of the money can keep,
the more they will
work. Very simple, very old, and very true.
I don't doubt that the principle is true - other things being equal
(and there are historical counterexamples to it when other things
apparently were not equal) - but it is a different thing entirely from
saying that tax cuts lead to an increase in tax revenues.
Post by NoEd
Similarly, corporate tax revenues plummeted after Reagan's tax cut -
in contradiction to the "cut taxes, increase revenue" ideal.
Corporate tax revenue surged only after the 1986 tax-reform law,
which got rid of a lot of tax-sheltering opportunities. This
broadened the base of what gets taxed, and thus allowed Congress to
reduce the top corporate tax rate without losing revenues. But for a
number of corporations, the act did not lower taxes. In fact, it
limited depreciation deductions, eliminated the investment tax
credit, and strengthened the "alternative minimum tax." Popular
tax-sheltering approaches suddenly became useless or illegal.
Do you dispute any of the above? Is so, based on what?
See my comments.
You didn't comment on the decline in corporate tax revenue.
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
We need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion
of the healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp.
less direct spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Healthcare is not a right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required to pay for
your own private security force? How about defense? Why am
I required to pay taxes to support sending cruise missles
hither and thither and having my neighbors get blown up by
suicide bombers in Iraq?
Policing is a function of government as is national defense.
Bad example.
Why is it bad example? What exactly defines policing as a function of
government and excludes contributing to the medical well being of the
citizens? I'm not actually in favor of a national health
service but I think the question is a legitimate one.
Role of government. Don't get stupid on me.
I don't see any argument here. You are just restating an opinion.
I still don't see a response.
Still waiting....
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
The solution is tocut spending and reduce taxes. Society is way overtaxed.
Simple but not easy.
This sort of voodoo economics has been debunked time and again by
professional economists. It just doesn't work. It would be great if
it did, but sadly, it's a right wing fantasy.
Milton Friedman? Is there a tax rate too high? What is the
overrall incremental tax rate you claim is too high. 50% 60% 90%
99%. Please let me
know.
According to what criteria? Moral? Economic? Give me a context
for your question.
I gave you a "professional" economist.
Milton Friedman doesn't support supply-siders. I'm not sure what you
are driving at.
Milton Friedman doesn't support high taxes. Please show where he supports
high taxes.
It's not controversial to say that 90% taxation is too high. You don't
need to invoke Milton Friedman as a talisman is that is the only claim
you are making here.
Post by NoEd
I worked with Reagan.
By your own logic then, as I understand it, your point of view is
biased and your arguments on this topic are suspect.
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
But you didn't answer the
question: what is a too high incremental tax rate?
I'm not ducking. I'm asking what basis you want me to use for that
question? Are you asking for my gut feeling about the highest
incremental tax rate based purely on concepts of fairness? I'll say
43%. If you are asking based on the Laffer Curve, I think it is a
much higher number than that, at least if it kicks in at a high
enough threshold.
Between state, local, federal, SS, Medicare, and other taxes, the
incremental rate is higher than 43%.
We were talking about Federal Income Tax. I actually got to 43% by
starting at 50% and backing out SS&FUTA&Medicare (in round numbers).
Of course we know that State tax rates vary widely by state and state
taxes are typically deducted by people in the higher tax brackets.
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Most NIH funding is pissed away. It should be tabled and a new
model should be created. It is far too political.
What's your basis for claiming that most NIH funding is pissed away?
What's your definition of pissed away? What do you mean by it being
political? Grants are based on scientific peer review by people
unaffiliated with the applicant.
http://www.nurseweek.com/features/98-9/fund.html
This article is not supporting support for the claim that most NIH
funding is pissed away.
Post by NoEd
You're a fool, but not if you benefit form these grants.
???
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Know
to pay out the future expeditures it has already promised
while maintaining levels of expenditure for things like
defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised". Social
security payments that keep pace with inflation is an example
of a big part of the Federal budget that has been promised.
You know that we have a graduated income tax rate, but we have
a non-graduated payroll tax rate that kicks in for all salaried
people before income/withholding tax even applies. We take
the same 7.6% from each person and also from their employer no
matter what their income or means and we tell them that this is
mostly for
their future social security payments. The govt. could cancel
those future payments, but then it would have lied to all those
people and taken money from them by force on false pretenses.
The President laid out a plan for SS. Alan Greenspan has
indicated that "promised" payments cannot be maintained.
Neutral analysts have said that Bush's numbers don't add up on
this topic. Greenspan's comments are partly taking Bush's tax
cuts into account.
Please. The tax cuts are the solution.
You keep restating this opinion with any evidence or argument, as
though it is just a matter of religious faith.
See above. Do I have to prove that letting peope keep the money
they earned is moral?
I'd like it if you would follow the argument more closely and make it
clear where you are making a moral argument and where you are making
a practical one. You started above by claiming tax cuts could fix
the problem of future unbalances in the social security system, and
when I question you about it you are responding with a vague moral
claim against all taxation.
They are the same.
1) "Taxes should be reduced/eliminated because they are immoral" 2)
"Taxes should be reduced/eliminated because that will increase
the amount of tax revenue collected by the Federal government"
How are those arguments the same?
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Lets see if we agree on something easy. The Dept. of Education
needs be eliminated Do you agree?
I agree that it is a bad dept. Just saying "elminiate" it
irresponsible however. The Federal govt. does have a role to play in
trying to see to it that every child has an opportunity to get a high
quality education.
No. Parents do. It is at best a local issue.
Lots of children are born to terrible, irresponsible parents in
broken homes. Are you saying that the govt. should ignore them?
Direct federal yes. But these is an extreme cases. You know we are not
talking about the extreme cases. May be you can help me out, what
should the government do when children are born to terrible,
irresponsible parents in broken homes?
One thing the govt. tries to do is make sure they go to grade school.
Really.
Sure does. Schools districts not meeting minimal hrs/week and
attendance standards would not receive funding.
Post by NoEd
Another thing it tries to do is make sure those schools
meet some minimal standards.
Could these be applied to private schools?
Theoretically yes. It might be expensive to check in practice if the
number of different schools and distinct curricula to examine balloons.
Post by NoEd
A third thing the dept. of education
does is offer loans to pay for post-grade school education for
applicants who qualify based on both achievement and need.
The department is a complete waste of money.
Why are college loans to students a complete waste of money? Most
economists regard education as a good public investment.
Post by NoEd
So which of those things are you against and what do you want to
replace them with.
I not locked into that we need a dept of education.
Neither am I. But how about answering the question? This part of the
thread is entirely on your chosen example of abolishing the Dept. of
Education, so I expect you to be a little more forthcoming with
proposals to replace its more significant functions.
Post by NoEd
The government should
not be in the business of handing out scholarships.
Who said anything about scholarships?
Post by NoEd
It sounds like you are saying
that parents do those things in most all cases and the cases where
they don't are too sporadic for the govt. to worry about. Is that
your position?
Did I say that? I said that the federal gov should not be in the business
of education. Clear?
Not clear. You said you want to abolish the Dept. of Education and
I'm asking you what will replace its functions. If your answer is
"nothing" then we can talk about that.
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
We are miles apart. I see the individual and family as the basic unit
of society. You fear freedom and wealth.
Bullshit.
You think taxing the rich is the solution. I don't. Its not BS.
I don't know what "taxing the rich is the solution" means. I do know
you said "You fear freedom and wealth" and that is bullshit.
Taxing the rich and government proferring assistance is your plank.
I'm not a political party and I don't have a plank. My purpose here is
to counteract your spread of irresponsible nonsense and disinformation
about economics and government.
Post by NoEd
This is
the opposite of freedom and wealth. How are you going to have freedom and
wealth with high taxes?
You claim that the U.S. has had high taxes before. Kerry doesn't
support taxes that exceed previous levels. Are you trying to say then
that the U.S. has never been wealthy or had freedom? Most all of your
"arguments" seem to devolve into either unsupported opinion or
nonsensical rubbish.
Post by NoEd
Impossible. Illogical. Inconsistent.
See above.
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
I fear government. I see the
govenment as being very limited in what it can do.
Then your philosophy is very different from G.W. Bush who
apparently wants to use our armed forces to teach the world about
democracy.
Really. Prove it. I didn't here that at all.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
You can skip the fluff at the top and read down to the last eight
paragraphs.
It just so happens that exporting and teaching demacracy is an
excellent defense policy. It is far more powerful than bullets and
bombs. Hell, Reagan
won the cold war without firing a shot.
What we are talking about in Iraq is bullets and bombs, and very
expensive ones at that. Both in terms of money and life. We are still
taking over 1000 casualties per month there with no end in sight. Do
you also support similar "teaching" in Syria or Iran during a Bush
second term?
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
You sound like a person who works as a government employee or
relies on the government.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. in some way. I am not a
govt. employee, but don't see why my arguments would be any less
valid if I was.
Everyone is the U.S. relies on the govt. Sure. Defense, Courts, Police,
Fire. Your statement means nothing.
It makes a difference. Perspective is everything. There is no doubt
your face is deep in the public trough.
So you're saying that anybody who actually works on Defense, Courts,
Police, Fire, etc. can't voice valid arguments in a debate about
taxes because their professional affiliation makes their point of
view biased and suspect?? By the same logic, all politicians
therefore are suspect and shouldn't speak on these topics.
It is highly unlikely your living is not made almost exclusively from
government. Of course they can voice valid arguements, but people
argue what's in their best self interest (Can you dispute that?).
Knowing that perspecitive is important. Politicians at least in theory
are accountable to
the voters. Folks like you are not. You will always come up with a "need"
to spend other people's money.
Why don't you just be honest, you like government because you make
your living off government. One thing I have learned debating guys
like you, I
have experience since I have many friends that attended Berkeley, is
that they have an underlying superiority complex since they have
deluded themselves into believing they don't act based on self
interest. What a bunch a crap! Believe or not there are Mensas who
are conservative and are
going to vote for GWB. Ain't that strange?
You don't know anything about me so you flail about widly with ad
hominem attacks hoping something will stick.
My wife and I both work and half our income from last year was from
investments. If we sat down with my income tax, it would be obvious to
you that I don't have an economic bias against the Bush tax cuts. So
take your stupid cultural war, and your false economic pseudo-religion,
and jam up your ass, you ignorant, lame, Reaganite, scumbag.
Post by NoEd
Can you name one social program that needs eliminating?
Post by NoEd
Your basic arguement is to tax the rich so money will be avaliable
for politically motivated alternatives, e.g. save the whales, help
the children, build a new road, fund research, etc.
"Save the whales" is some sort of anti-liberal bogeyman that has
nothing to do with govt. and doesn't belong in this discussion. Now
please tell me why helping children, building and maintaining roads,
and funding research count as "politically motivated" alternatives
why defense spending and corporate welfare do not.
Post by NoEd
That philosphy is both
immoral and, worse, bankrupt in its effect.
You just spout moral non-sequiturs at every gap in the text without a
shred of reason or coherency. You're like a big gas balloon with a
leak, darting around in the wind.
Post by NoEd
My arguement is simple: taxes kill economies, regulations kill economies,
It's a matter of getting the right proportions, and also a matter of
balancing fairness and efficiency. Those are not simple matters.
Who decides this? What is "fair?" Government? Give me a break.
Post by NoEd
wealth is best for the environment
Meaning, according to you, that lower marginal tax rates will help
avoid pollution?? You've lost me here.
Do richer countries have better environmental records as compared to
poor countries? If you don't have food, you really don't care about
the environment.
Post by NoEd
governement should be
limited to those functions it best handles
Agree, if what you mean by that is the government should only handle
functions where it is the best candidate to do so.
Post by NoEd
taxes to pay for those
function not best provided by government are immoral, parents should
have the option of sending there children to any school.
I support school vouchers in principle, but not as a ruse to change
the standards of publicly supported curriculum in favor of religious
curriculum or to take money out of needy areas, or to provide a perk
to people who don't need it.
The areas where money should most be diverted to private schools is areas in
need. I have always trusted Sister Susan as opposed to administrator Al.
Ed
2004-09-06 07:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Sure we need a safety net, but Medicare and SS is not based on need.
I'm in favor of making them more need-based if that is
what you are saying.
I'm not. People pay into these all of their working life. The biggest
problem I have with it is who decides who gets it and who doesn't.

Making it needs based would also reward the irresponsible. People who
planned and saved for their senior years would be excluded and those who
spent everything they earned would be rewarded.
NoEd
2004-09-06 15:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Then would you be in favor of limiting the amount received to the amount put
in plus interest?
Post by Ed
Post by Last2Know
Post by NoEd
Sure we need a safety net, but Medicare and SS is not based on need.
I'm in favor of making them more need-based if that is
what you are saying.
I'm not. People pay into these all of their working life. The biggest
problem I have with it is who decides who gets it and who doesn't.
Making it needs based would also reward the irresponsible. People who
planned and saved for their senior years would be excluded and those who
spent everything they earned would be rewarded.
Richard Macdonald
2004-09-06 08:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
benefits for high income and wealthy people.
What is wealthy? Beside, they are paying nearlly all the taxes, so who else
would benefit from a tax cut?
Looking at phase outs for the "wealthy" in the IRC, the "wealthy" start
at about $64,000 per year, or the top quintile.
NoEd
2004-09-06 15:23:01 UTC
Permalink
You try living in CA on 64K, and you will know that 64K is NOT wealthily.
Post by Richard Macdonald
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
benefits for high income and wealthy people.
What is wealthy? Beside, they are paying nearlly all the taxes, so who
else
Post by NoEd
would benefit from a tax cut?
Looking at phase outs for the "wealthy" in the IRC, the "wealthy" start
at about $64,000 per year, or the top quintile.
Richard Macdonald
2004-09-06 15:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
You try living in CA on 64K, and you will know that 64K is NOT wealthily.
I'm not saying what is "Rich", just where the phase outs for the "Rich"
start in the tax code.
Post by NoEd
Post by Richard Macdonald
Post by NoEd
Post by Last2Know
benefits for high income and wealthy people.
What is wealthy? Beside, they are paying nearlly all the taxes, so who
else
Post by NoEd
would benefit from a tax cut?
Looking at phase outs for the "wealthy" in the IRC, the "wealthy" start
at about $64,000 per year, or the top quintile.
Arthur L. Rubin
2004-09-07 18:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Macdonald
Looking at phase outs for the "wealthy" in the IRC, the "wealthy" start
at about $64,000 per year, or the top quintile.
That's about the top 40%, is it not?
Ed
2004-09-05 16:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Both of these are a disaster. Taxes are already too high and it is immoral
to have somebody else pay for another's healthcare.
Healthy people with health care insurance pay for the healthcare of sick
people with healthcare insurance. Do you have health care insurance?
NoEd
2004-09-06 01:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Yes, but Im not forced into having insurance, except for Medicare.
Post by NoEd
Post by NoEd
Both of these are a disaster. Taxes are already too high and it is
immoral
Post by NoEd
to have somebody else pay for another's healthcare.
Healthy people with health care insurance pay for the healthcare of sick
people with healthcare insurance. Do you have health care insurance?
Ed
2004-09-06 08:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
Yes, but Im not forced into having insurance, except for Medicare.
The only people that aren't "forced" to have health insurance are the
extremely wealthy or the very poor. Which are you?
Peter Pan
2004-09-06 15:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
Post by NoEd
Yes, but Im not forced into having insurance, except for Medicare.
The only people that aren't "forced" to have health insurance are the
extremely wealthy or the very poor. Which are you?
You forgot two huge groups, government employees and veterans.
NoEd
2004-09-06 15:24:11 UTC
Permalink
I another stupid comment made when you have no rejoinder. I am forced to
pay for you medical costs, i.e. Medicare.
Post by Ed
Post by NoEd
Yes, but Im not forced into having insurance, except for Medicare.
The only people that aren't "forced" to have health insurance are the
extremely wealthy or the very poor. Which are you?
Ed
2004-09-07 07:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
I another stupid comment made when you have no rejoinder. I am forced to
pay for you medical costs, i.e. Medicare.
It's no different with traditional healthcare insurance. Now, if you said
Medicaid you might have an argument.
NoEd
2004-09-07 12:16:07 UTC
Permalink
No Ed.

The last time I checked, I have to pay for your healthcare, i.e. Medicare.
Post by Ed
Post by NoEd
I another stupid comment made when you have no rejoinder. I am forced to
pay for you medical costs, i.e. Medicare.
It's no different with traditional healthcare insurance. Now, if you said
Medicaid you might have an argument.
Ed
2004-09-07 12:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
No Ed.
The last time I checked, I have to pay for your healthcare, i.e. Medicare.
Sorry, I'm not on Medicare.

If you have health insurance with the same outfit that I do (not likely)
then we are paying for each others healthcare. You're confused.
TK Sung
2004-09-09 16:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
The only people that aren't "forced" to have health insurance are the
extremely wealthy or the very poor.
Or someone who think his life isn't worth his net worth. When he becomes
sick, his life suddenly becomes worthy enough to *force* the rest of us to
pick up the tab, after enjoying his "freedom" not to be "forced" to have
health insurance.
Ed
2004-09-09 16:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by TK Sung
Post by Ed
The only people that aren't "forced" to have health insurance are the
extremely wealthy or the very poor.
Or someone who think his life isn't worth his net worth. When he becomes
sick, his life suddenly becomes worthy enough to *force* the rest of us to
pick up the tab, after enjoying his "freedom" not to be "forced" to have
health insurance.
I hope he had a good financial planner so his assets are protected,
otherwise he will be the first to pay, not you.

I think the biggest burden on the healthcare system, besides insurance, is
free care. Here in MA we have a large Asian population, many from Cambodia
and Vietnam. When they came here they were given many benefits including
some not available to the citizens that were already here. They brought
their sick and elderly and these people cost us plenty in free care dollars.
We both know that nothing is free, it's the people that work and have
healthcare insurance that pay for free care. The same thing is happening in
Florida with the Cubans and in CA with the Mexicans. What do you suggest we
do? How can we get rid of the $10 aspirin and the $12 box of facial tissue?
I guess we could stop people without sponsers or proof of employment from
entering the country. I'm all for it. Think of the savings in welfare and
medical dollars.

Each time I go to the hospital for tests the emergency room is filled with
Asian people waiting to see the doctor. Guess who's paying for it.
Boob
2004-09-09 18:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by TK Sung
Post by Ed
The only people that aren't "forced" to have health
insurance are the extremely wealthy or the very poor.
Or someone who think his life isn't worth his net worth. When
he becomes sick, his life suddenly becomes worthy enough to
*force* the rest of us to pick up the tab, after enjoying his
"freedom" not to be "forced" to have health insurance.
Or any of the millions of us who know, beyond a shadow of a doubt
from having been criminally assaulted and permanently injured by
medifrauds and dentifrauds and other ill trained incompetent and
viciously abusive frauds in the "health services" fraudocracy,
that there isn't any health care available at any price and that
the "insurance" swindle system is nothing but a means of paying
extortion to incompetents and criminal thugs who have nothing to
offer anyway.
The Clinton quadruple bypass slopperation is case in point.
Not a word anywhere in the reports and glowing fraudulent hype
about the "value of insurance" that has come out of that sloppy
diagnosis and open heart surgery that angioplasty or any of the
other means of minimally invasive heart surgery could have done
a better job at less cost and with less risk to the life of the
ailing person. Nope, by golly, it's all about hyping the paying
of more more more extortion to the criminal thugs and incompetents.
They do have quite a run going in the medifraud orgie stocks
at the moment, speculating on the additional extortions probable
if the photocopy pirate gang frat bras scam to pay that more more
more extortions out of Federal funds while the people of the United
States continue to suffer from some of the most abusive destructive
and fraudulent "health care" in the world. Has much to do, I
conclude, with the fact that virtually all of the "health care"
professionals are being trained at homosexual fraud institutions
where the only value systems are stealing the other guys balls and
doing violence against persons in homosexual dominance rituals.
The Hippocratic Oath went into the sewer with Sturgeon Genital
Dr. Krap, appointed by Raygun/Bush to terrorize American heteros,
and his medifraud malpractice of demanding object rape of heteros
so as to foster the criminal tax evading Xian "church" objective of
imposing slavery on male citizens via their divorce racketeering
industry run by baby raping faggot priests demanding that slavery
as the only acceptable form of hetero relationship. There was
only *one* member of the medical profession, a Dr. Stryker, who
attempted to question that faggot criminal abrogation of the human
and civil rights of American heteros. The rest were too aware of
their own criminal negligent malpractices to address the issue of
AFRaids on its own lack of merit as anything other than criminal
abrogation and terrorist medifraud.
So your notion of laying off the "costs" of something which
doesn't exist in the first place, actual health care, is totally
bogus and superfluous, and presumes extortion and criminal thuggery
are "okay" which they are not. As noted before, what is needed is
a shutdown of the slop trough for the faggot thugs of the medifraud
and dentifraud industry and a redevelopment of the health care
system at institutions with a more balanced social view in which
actual care for human needs is possible, instead of the steal the
other guys balls and engage in violence against persons which is
indoctrinated into graduates of the current institutional structure.
Boob :-)##


Have you covered your nut yet this year? If not, may I suggest
researching http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
instead of listening to hypists in misc.invest.stocks? If you wish
to email me go to http://home.earthlink.net/~bgrumbin
TK Sung
2004-09-07 17:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
What is really crazy is the number of nincompoops on this NG who support
Kerry.
Gosh, NoEd, I hope you did something else for fun on the long weekend!
Herb
2004-09-08 04:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by TK Sung
Post by NoEd
What is really crazy is the number of nincompoops on this NG who support
Kerry.
Gosh, NoEd, I hope you did something else for fun on the long weekend!
I had the distinct impression that the nincompoops were supporting Bush.
Don't you have to be a nincompoop to vote for a moron?

-herb
TK Sung
2004-09-08 16:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herb
I had the distinct impression that the nincompoops were supporting Bush.
Don't you have to be a nincompoop to vote for a moron?
Bush pronounces it as no-income-pops. Those no-income pops support bush
because they hate gays and arabs even though they lost their income under
bush.
Boob
2004-09-08 17:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by TK Sung
Post by Herb
I had the distinct impression that the nincompoops were
supporting Bush. Don't you have to be a nincompoop to
vote for a moron?
Bush pronounces it as no-income-pops. Those no-income pops
support bush because they hate gays and arabs even though they
lost their income under bush.
and the sonofaBush himself has always been a cheerleader of faggot
dominance rituals, put $15 million into his own pocket via ripping
off Texans for the building of a prettier faggot dominance ritual
stadium, was the commander in chief in control of Abu Ghraib, and
continues the antihetero faggot fascist practice started by Bush
the Elder of demanding object rape condoms for anyone who wants to
engage in hetero activities outside of the slave mongering lesbian
criminal theft system of divorce racketeering promoted by the
criminal tax evading "churches" that the sonofaBush wants to compel
all of the no-income-pops to attend so as to contribute slave labor
for the greater honor and gory of belligerent blasphemy. Go figger.
I guess all of those homosexual lifestyle patterning courses in the
schools must be defrauding enough of the no-income-pops of the
ability to read or write competently that they can't understand
that the sonofaBush *is* the faggotry leader and that the Bush
crime family's economics minister Greedspan has been imposing
Islamic law against the paying of any interest to prudent savers
and investors.
Boob :-)##


Have you covered your nut yet this year? If not, may I suggest
researching http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
instead of listening to hypists in misc.invest.stocks? If you wish
to email me go to http://home.earthlink.net/~bgrumbin
Ed
2004-09-08 18:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by TK Sung
Bush pronounces it as no-income-pops. Those no-income pops support bush
because they hate gays and arabs even though they lost their income under
bush.
Not true. Most of the people I know that are un or underemployed are in
technology. IS/IT predominately. This was coming off of the Clinton tech
bubble. No reasonable person could blame Bush for that. FWIW, I don't blame
Clinton either because it was the marketplace at work. That is unless you
think everyone should be employed by the government at good paying jobs.
TK Sung
2004-09-08 20:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
Most of the people I know that are un or underemployed are in
technology. IS/IT predominately.
They are not nincompoops. Those around where you live are nincompyups
according to bush. noncompoops dwell in the plains and appalachia. Just
ask your buddy NoEd, a nincompoop expert.
NoEd
2004-09-13 14:41:36 UTC
Permalink
I stand by my statement. Kerry is the candidate of nincompoops.
Post by TK Sung
Post by NoEd
What is really crazy is the number of nincompoops on this NG who support
Kerry.
Gosh, NoEd, I hope you did something else for fun on the long weekend!
TK Sung
2004-09-13 21:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
I stand by my statement. Kerry is the candidate of nincompoops.
ok, just don't spend all your weekends studying nincompoopology. We need
you to save your energy to battle Ed.
Ed
2004-09-13 21:51:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by TK Sung
ok, just don't spend all your weekends studying nincompoopology. We need
you to save your energy to battle Ed.
There's no battle, it's a stand-off. I have no problem with those who prefer
indexing it's just not for me.

5 year average annual total returns through 8/31/04:
Vanguard 500, -2.13%
Vanguard Growth Index, -5.75%
Vanguard Total Stock Market, -0.89%
Vanguard Pacific Stock Index, -2.67%
Vanguard European Stock Index, -0.53%

What's not to love about those returns, I can see where you're coming from.
LOL!
You need to be a 'special' person to put up with pathetic returns like those
for 5 years.
Gary C
2004-09-14 00:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
Vanguard 500, -2.13%
Vanguard Growth Index, -5.75%
Vanguard Total Stock Market, -0.89%
Vanguard Pacific Stock Index, -2.67%
Vanguard European Stock Index, -0.53%
What's not to love about those returns, I can see where you're coming from.
LOL!
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
NoEd
2004-09-14 01:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Finally off the road and that's all you can say? You give truckers a bad
name.
Post by Gary C
Post by Ed
Vanguard 500, -2.13%
Vanguard Growth Index, -5.75%
Vanguard Total Stock Market, -0.89%
Vanguard Pacific Stock Index, -2.67%
Vanguard European Stock Index, -0.53%
What's not to love about those returns, I can see where you're coming from.
LOL!
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Bob
2004-09-14 04:54:33 UTC
Permalink
America the Unfree by Paul Craig RobertsAmerica the Unfree
by Paul Craig Roberts

The Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal's tenth annual Index of
Economic Freedom pulls the wool over our eyes. The deception is
unintentional and arises from a fatal flaw in the index.

The index delivers the comforting conclusion that the US is the 10th most
free country, far ahead of 155th ranked North Korea. However, the index
ignores the simple truth that people who do not own the product of their
labor are not free. People subject to an income tax do not own the product
of their labor.

Our Founding Fathers understood this. Indeed, historically the very
definition of freedom has been self-ownership. Serfs and slaves are not
free, because they do not own their labor.

Any American who thinks he owns his labor can test the proposition by
refusing to pay his income tax. He will quickly discover that he is not a
free person.

The Heritage index is ahistorical. It is blind to the enormous loss of
freedom in the 20th century, especially in the US and the UK. It takes as
its starting point the re-enserfment of populations and predicates a
"freedom" index on unfree labor.

This extraordinary failing reduces a valuable study to a propaganda device.

Compare an American taxpayer's situation today with that of a 19th century
American slave. Not all slaves worked on cotton plantations. Some with
marketable skills were leased to businesses or released to labor markets,
where they worked for money wages. Just like the wages of today's taxpayer,
a portion of the slave's money wages was withheld. In those days the
private
owner, not the government, received the withheld portion of the slave's
wages.

Slaves in that situation were as free as today's American taxpayer to
choose
their housing from the available stock, purchase their food and clothing,
and entertain themselves.

In fact, they were freer than today's American taxpayer. By hard work and
thrift, they could save enough to purchase their freedom.

No American today can purchase his freedom from the IRS.

Slaves could also run away. Today, Americans who run away are pursued to
the
far ends of the earth. Indeed, the IRS can assert its ownership rights for
years after an American gives up his citizenship and becomes a citizen of a
different country. The IRS need only claim that the former American gave up
his citizenship for tax reasons.

I challenge Heritage and the Wall Street Journal to initiate a broader
index
of freedom, one that not only includes self-ownership, but also the Bill of
Rights that defines our civil liberties and the 14th Amendment that insists
on equality before the law.

Such an index would reveal that the US is a stunningly unfree country. The
lowest federal tax rate in combination with the Social Security and
Medicare
tax confers serf status upon lower income groups. The top tax rate, federal
and state, converts successful Americans into government's slaves.

The protective principles in law that ensure our civil liberties - no crime
without intent, no bills of attainder, no retroactive law, the
attorney-client privilege, no self-incrimination - have been eroded beyond
recognition. Wars against the Mafia, drug dealers, child abusers, and
terrorists - accused whose convictions are thought necessary at all costs -
have eviscerated the Bill of Rights. Today not even multi-billionaires can
fight off prosecutorial frame-ups.

Americans believe that they are free until they encounter the "justice"
system, at which time they learn that they are as helpless as medieval
serfs.

The "civil rights revolution" destroyed equality before the law. Today
rights are race- and gender-based. We have resurrected the status-based
rights of feudalism. The new privileges belong to "preferred minorities"
rather than noble families.

Neoconservative delusion that America has a monopoly on virtue and the
right
to impose American values on the world prevents a realistic look at the
deplorable state of freedom in America today. It is a paradox that a
country
that has abandoned freedom and re-enserfed its population sees itself as
role model for the world.



January 28, 2004

Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy,
Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and
Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate
editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the
U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate
Clemens Gehrmann
2004-09-15 00:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
America the Unfree by Paul Craig RobertsAmerica the Unfree
by Paul Craig Roberts
I am not sure there is a single 'free' society in this world. Nations
exchange people like various mafia clans decide who controls what
district. They battle it out over who you end up paying 'protection
money' to, but you will always be paying to somebody. You'll never be
in a situation where you are free to decide yourself over what to do
with 'your' resources. 'Freedom' is an illusion, and probably hasn't
existed since the Stone Age or maybe various Tribal Societies.
Wherever 'civilization' has taken hold, personal enslavement has come
with it. If you're 'lucky', you'll at least get a golden cage to sit
in, with various consumer goods to keep your mind off thinking. Other
people may not be living their non-freedom in as much luxury. ;-)



-----------------------------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush, Aug 5, 2004
NoEd
2004-09-14 01:06:17 UTC
Permalink
I know your claims. Pure BS. See the contest so far; the results speak for
themselves.
Post by Ed
Post by TK Sung
ok, just don't spend all your weekends studying nincompoopology. We need
you to save your energy to battle Ed.
There's no battle, it's a stand-off. I have no problem with those who prefer
indexing it's just not for me.
Vanguard 500, -2.13%
Vanguard Growth Index, -5.75%
Vanguard Total Stock Market, -0.89%
Vanguard Pacific Stock Index, -2.67%
Vanguard European Stock Index, -0.53%
What's not to love about those returns, I can see where you're coming from.
LOL!
You need to be a 'special' person to put up with pathetic returns like those
for 5 years.
Meridian Leeward
2004-09-17 00:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
There's no battle, it's a stand-off. I have no problem with those who prefer
indexing it's just not for me.
Vanguard 500, -2.13%
Vanguard Growth Index, -5.75%
Vanguard Total Stock Market, -0.89%
Vanguard Pacific Stock Index, -2.67%
Vanguard European Stock Index, -0.53%
What's not to love about those returns, I can see where you're coming from.
LOL!
You need to be a 'special' person to put up with pathetic returns like those
for 5 years.
I'm not somebody who claims to know anything investing in funds but I
tend to relate more to your perspective. I just can't grasp the
concept that I would be better off losing money for that long.


--
=================
Mike Burell
http://burell.com
=================

That leaves you, you'll have to do it - T Rundgren

Clemens Gehrmann
2004-09-14 23:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEd
I stand by my statement. Kerry is the candidate of nincompoops.
Both are. What a dilemma to be presented with a 'choice' that is no
choice at all. Kerry is like a date picked just to avoid the "ugly
step-sister". Bush and Kerry are both unelectable, IMO.

One thing I cannot stand is people without principles, a whole list of
whom is presented at http://www.vote2stopbush.com/ . People who choose
to help 'the devil' in order to get rid of 'the devil'.

Nader didn't stand a chance in 2000, and yet, they backed him. He
doesn't stand a chance in 2004, but why are they not backing him now?
To support Kerry in a drive to unseat Bush? Laughable. Kerry will do
nothing different than Bush, except, he'll have gloves on while he's
doing it.

Give me liberty, or give me death. Democracy cannot work when people
"strategically" decide to pick the second-worst choice over the best
choice. I am not saying that Nader represents the 'best choice' for
everybody, or that he should. Merely that people need to vote their
conscience, and discard 'strategy' into the garbage where it belongs.
If that means another 4 years of Bush, then so be it.




-----------------------------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush, Aug 5, 2004
c***@webtv.net
2004-09-05 20:55:54 UTC
Permalink
kerry is an old time socialist tax and spend kook out of the old
days.... ignore him.

"The real WMD's in Iraq are the Terrorists we are fighting. N erve gas,
nukes,poison are all worthless without a Terrorist to use them"
AGeneYoung
2004-09-08 21:00:19 UTC
Permalink
To the point of George Bush being a moron .....

his sat scores are higher than kerry's.

Posted via ProphetTalk
Home of Intelligent Investor Discussion
http://www.prophet.net/prophettalk
Herb
2004-09-08 21:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by AGeneYoung
To the point of George Bush being a moron .....
his sat scores are higher than kerry's.
No they're not.
Post by AGeneYoung
Posted via ProphetTalk
Home of Intelligent Investor Discussion
http://www.prophet.net/prophettalk
Ed
2004-09-08 22:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herb
Post by AGeneYoung
To the point of George Bush being a moron .....
his sat scores are higher than kerry's.
No they're not.
So what are they and what is your source?
AGeneYoung
2004-09-09 13:29:36 UTC
Permalink
the point is that a vote for kerry is a vote for someone that has lower sat scores than a moron.

Posted via ProphetTalk
Home of Intelligent Investor Discussion
http://www.prophet.net/prophettalk
AGeneYoung
2004-09-09 22:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Boob sez, 'Or any of .... institutional structure.
Boob :-)##'

Now tell us how you really feel. :-----}

Incidently I feel sorry for anyone that shorted orcl today then went fishing.


Posted via ProphetTalk
Home of Intelligent Investor Discussion
http://www.prophet.net/prophettalk
Boob
2004-09-10 03:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by AGeneYoung
Incidently I feel sorry for anyone that shorted orcl today
then went fishing.
Or any of the chippers or other major "tech" stocks. Just wasn't
the day for the shorts.
Boob :-)##


Have you covered your nut yet this year? If not, may I suggest
researching http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
instead of listening to hypists in misc.invest.stocks? If you wish
to email me go to http://home.earthlink.net/~bgrumbin
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...