[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, in saying that, are you debating semantics or stating that we shouldn't have to pay tax?

Semantics.

I don't think this is a trifling semantic point however. These distinctions play key roles in one's attitude.

If I think RoW is the stuff of evil (which I do), I'm going to approach it differently than if I think it's a swell idea.

[Cold Warrior]

Right. So our approach to taxation will depend on our philosophy of government -- its roles, responsibilities, and the extent to which it should grow.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Taxes are a mandatory contribution to the building and maintenance of a nation's strategic infrastructure and its common defense. There's no other way to fund the government. However, it's too easy for Congress to relentlessly expand their definition of infrastructure to include stuff that isn't necessary (and, on that note, people's definition of necessary will vary).

Of course people's definitions of necessary vary - some people even make the case that the war in Iraq is necessary. That's why congress is elected, and has debates. At the point that people care enough about something, they will vote for someone who prioritizes that issue. The leading candidates are all talking about government intervention in health care because of the huge number of voters who think it needs government intervention.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The leading candidates are all talking about government intervention in health care because of the huge number of voters who think it needs government intervention.

I haven't seen any data where "huge numbers" think it needs government intervention.

Care to quote or link?

And I haven't seen the Republican leading candidates shill for government intervention ala administration/supervision.

What we should be doing is fostering a climate where health care is more affordable because there's more competition and lower operating costs. Employers should be able to deduct 100% of any premiums they pay on behalf of employees; premiums should be subtracted from income for FICA % calculations (for both employer & employee percentages); etc.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

I haven't seen any data where "huge numbers" think it needs government intervention.
Care to quote or link?

You can use Google - I'm baffled that you would think that huge numbers of Americans don't think health care needs government intervention

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

And I haven't seen the Republican leading candidates shill for government intervention ala administration/supervision.

There are no leading Republican candidates.

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

What we should be doing is fostering a climate where health care is more affordable because there's more competition and lower operating costs. Employers should be able to deduct 100% of any premiums they pay on behalf of employees; premiums should be subtracted from income for FICA % calculations (for both employer & employee percentages); etc.

I don't disagree that that would have helped if someone had done it years ago, but right now the mood is for more systematic change.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You can use Google - I'm baffled that you would think that huge numbers of Americans don't think health care needs government intervention

You should have used Google and facts to back up your assertions before you presumed to speak for a "huge" majority of the American electorate. I didn't know they'd given you a mandate to communicate their wishes.

There are no leading Republican candidates.

So you say. How convenient to completely ignore 50% of the country. Just like you peep to ignore reality!

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

You should have used Google and facts to back up your assertions before you presumed to speak for a "huge" majority of the American electorate. I didn't know they'd given you a mandate to communicate their wishes.

Try to read posts before you reply - even better if you take the time to try to understand them. It will cause you to embarrass yourself a little less. I didn't say a 'huge majority', I said a 'huge number'. Pay attention. I don't need a mandate to report the facts.

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

So you say. How convenient to completely ignore 50% of the country. Just like you peep to ignore reality!

Republican supporters are far from 50% of the country. Far more than 50% are concerned about the state of US healthcare.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Semantics.

I don't think this is a trifling semantic point however. These distinctions play key roles in one's attitude.

If I think RoW is the stuff of evil (which I do), I'm going to approach it differently than if I think it's a swell idea.

I think it's best to separate our emotions from this as best as we can and look at this as practically as possible...

Speaking as practically as possible (and perhaps simplistically, hopefully not insultingly so): public roads, public education, and other public services are a good thing - I think most of us are on board with this idea. Our capitalism economy relies on the purchase of goods and services as well as trading with other countries. In order to support our economy we need all sorts of classes of labor. We need to keep the poor alive so that they can contribute to supporting businesses and doing stuff. When they can't afford housing, their own health, or the costs of raising their kids, while emotionally satisfying it might feel good to say "screw you you poor lazy bums, you can rot and die!", this puts a great strain on our economy, on our environment, and on the growth of our society.

So, how do we finance the downtrodden? Well, you can only get so much out of the middle class, so it makes sense to take more from the wealthy who are hording a great percentage of this country's money.

It might feel better to say "screw everybody else, I only care about my income, expenses, and well being!" Unfortunately, we are all connected. Your lifestyle is supported by others, and the luxuries and free time you enjoy are only possible because you can afford them, because there is somebody willing to work for you to make the things you enjoy obtainable.

As long as we are committed to functioning as a society utilizing our collective resources, we need to figure out how to make things work. The solutions we have now, while imperfect, are probably among the best of what we've come up with so far that lie in the framework of capitalism.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Try to read posts before you reply - even better if you take the time to try to understand them. It will cause you to embarrass yourself a little less. I didn't say a 'huge majority', I said a 'huge number'. Pay attention. I don't need a mandate to report the facts.

Huge numbers connote majority, peep, otherwise they're not huge -- they're just a minority. Learn to be more precise and descriptive in your dialog, and you may sway more than your moveon.org blogger friends.

Republican supporters are far from 50% of the country. Far more than 50% are concerned about the state of US healthcare.

You're changing the subject to hide your brazen bias and unfounded conclusions. There are leading candidates from the Republican side. What's the logic behind discounting them, and why? Hint: it's because you're not interested in debate. The Left are fanatical, and would legislate their permanency in power if they could.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

The Left are fanatical, and would legislate their permanency in power if they could.

As the Republicans have been trying to do. At least be honest.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Huge numbers connote majority, peep, otherwise they're not huge -- they're just a minority. Learn to be more precise and descriptive in your dialog, and you may sway more than your moveon.org blogger friends.

WRONG. A number can be huge, without being a majority.

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

You're changing the subject to hide your brazen bias and unfounded conclusions. There are leading candidates from the Republican side. What's the logic behind discounting them?

I was talking about leading candidates for the Presidency, not primary candidates. None of them are Republican.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I was talking about leading candidates for the Presidency, not primary candidates. None of them are Republican.

WRONG. Giuliani is competitive with Hillary. Hillary is the only competitive Dem.

It's shocking you'd consider the other Dem primary candidates "leading" when they don't have traction nationwide.

Although your distortions don't surprise me, peeb.

[peeb]

Dream on.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't get it. I provide you tons of links, and you can't read one of them. You argued that the tax cuts financed themselves. Have you forgotten that argument? Do you now admit that you were wrong? As I said before, the Treasury Dept disagrees with you.

"The analysis presented in the paper suggests that permanently extending the President's tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 likely would lead to a long-run increase in the capital stock and an increase in national output in both the short run and the long run. If the revenue cost of that tax relief is offset by reducing future government spending, the increase in output is likely be [sic] about 0.7 percent under plausible assumptions. If, instead, the tax relief is extended only through the end of the budget window (i.e., it is temporary), the tax relief would increase national output in the short run, but long-run output would decline as future tax rates increase."

There is no argument to be made that cutting taxes from their current levels increases revenue. Only the truly insane believe it. Since you can't even bother to read the articles you quote from, I give up on you.



Again, what is this all about?! Have you given up your argument that cutting taxes increases tax revenue?

(By the way, since government spending has been increasing twice as fast as the GDP over the last couple years, I think it is clear which scenario we are going to be in. The revenue cost of the tax relief is not being offset by reducing government spending, and so even Treasury concedes that long-run output will decline.)

Everyone arguing over the points made in these Treasury "position papers" are over-looking a small, but critical, element to their assumptions. I have high-lighted it above.

For those of you who say tax cuts increase revenue, this is true, IF those tax cuts are offset by reducing future government spending. So, tax cuts will lead to increased revenue IF the government cuts it spending concurrently, and by a similar amount, when issuing a tax cut.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

That wasn't my point, I was told only the US and England thought he had them. It simply wasn't true.

Lots of people believed he had them, but nobody could be certain. A handful of people decided to act on that belief without any evidence. It turned out their belief was wrong and there was no reason to rush in with such haste, when a more measured approach probably would have spared twice as many lives as were lost in the 9/11 attack.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Lots of people believed he had them, but nobody could be certain.

Well, they could have been had Saddam allowed unfettered inspections. Every time the inspectors got a tip and went to inspect, they were stopped, delayed or outright denied. Refusing to allow inspections in areas where WOMD's where suspected IS evidence that there was something that Iraq didn't want the inspectors to see. It's reasonable to infer that this was very likely something linked to WOMD's.

A handful of people decided to act on that belief without any evidence.

Actually, there was a lot of evidence Iraq had WOMD. THAT IS WHY most people believed they had them. Now granted, some of the evidence was circumstantial, some inaccurate and some misinterpreted - but the claim that there was no evidence is false and one of the keystones in the "Bush Lied" anti-war mythology.

It turned out their belief was wrong and there was no reason to rush in with such haste, when a more measured approach probably would have spared twice as many lives as were lost in the 9/11 attack.

A. Speculation.
B. Hindsight = 20/20

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think it's best to separate our emotions from this as best as we can and look at this as practically as possible...

I did exactly what I accused you of and pulled the batshit attitude out-of-turn.

I'll reformulate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Speaking as practically as possible (and perhaps simplistically, hopefully not insultingly so): public roads, public education, and other public services are a good thing - I think most of us are on board with this idea. Our capitalism economy relies on the purchase of goods and services as well as trading with other countries. In order to support our economy we need all sorts of classes of labor. We need to keep the poor alive so that they can contribute to supporting businesses and doing stuff. When they can't afford housing, their own health, or the costs of raising their kids, while emotionally satisfying it might feel good to say "screw you you poor lazy bums, you can rot and die!", this puts a great strain on our economy, on our environment, and on the growth of our society.

Now that I think about it, maybe prompting this response is a good thing. It was what I was worried about, so we can take it head on.

Despite the harshness of my words for RoW, the question is still one of whether the criticism is true or false. I think I tripped some sort of defense mechanism wherein the virtues of RoW (and the virtues of not being a ****er) can serve to prove the criticism false. Unless you can show some kind of causal link between the virtue and the criticism, it's not invalidating the criticism.

There is no causal link between RoW's virtues and criticisms. The virtues you list don't somehow absolve RoW from being legalized theft, or from being guilty of any number of other criticisms.

This is exactly the snag I thought I would run into. Any criticism of RoW wouldn't be met by addressing the criticism, but extolling the virtues.

So, taking this back to square one, is being legalized theft a valid criticism of RoW?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Ebuddy, I already know that you know nothing of economics. Your idea of fiscal responsibility is to support a $2 trillion war that harms our national interest.

I've maintained that the war in Iraq would not have been any cheaper if initiated 5 years from now. Quit being a divisive, partisan quack. You're the problem with this country right now.

And you supported that by arguing that spending money on a war is equally well motivated as spending money on infrastructure, research, or education... I don't think Chongo needs any "help" from you on economics. If this is your idea of fun, you'll have to decide whether a life of complete social retardation is worth it.

You're trying to argue that the government has been deplorable about spending. What that has to do with the government also being poor stewards of tax revenue collected for infrastructure, research, and education is beyond me. Quit being a divisive, partisan quack. You're the problem with this country right now.

I have never argued that tax cuts do not lead to increased output. Chongo argued that tax cuts led to increased revenue. When I challenged him to find any support for that position, he tried to switch his argument around.

Tax cuts do lead to increased revenue because it increases the tax base. That's what increased output is Einstein. Chongo established this and you tried to argue that tax cuts do not lead to increased output. You did so quoting a Dept of Treasury paper that claims tax cuts lead to increased output. Stay on task tie. Follow along. Try again.

Again.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think it's best to separate our emotions from this as best as we can and look at this as practically as possible...

Originally Posted by besson3c

... When they can't afford housing, their own health, or the costs of raising their kids, while emotionally satisfying it might feel good to say "screw you you poor lazy bums, you can rot and die!", this puts a great strain on our economy, on our environment, and on the growth of our society.

*does not compute*

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've maintained that the war in Iraq would not have been any cheaper if initiated 5 years from now.

One: the war wouldn't have been initiated five years from now, since the essential causes of the war --- Bush lying about WMD --- wouldn't have been in place. Two: You can't say whether a war five years from now would cost more or less than this, since the majority of the costs from the current war have been due to incompetence and poor planning. If your argument is that a war under Bush wouldn't have cost any less, then I'll agree, but under a competent and honest president, no.

Tax cuts do lead to increased revenue because it increases the tax base. That's what increased output is Einstein. Chongo established this and you tried to argue that tax cuts do not lead to increased output. You did so quoting a Dept of Treasury paper that claims tax cuts lead to increased output.

The tax cuts increase output, but the tax revenue on that output is not enough to offset the lost revenue from lower taxes. This is what the Treasury Dept says. I can't believe I have to explain this kind of basic arithmetic. Tomorrow's lesson will be addition, Einstein.

Once more: I agree that tax cuts increase output. I disagree that tax cuts increase tax revenue. The Treasury Dept agrees with me. Nobody with any knowledge of economics agrees with you or Chongo (but every Republican presidential candidate agrees with you guys).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

One: the war wouldn't have been initiated five years from now, since the essential causes of the war --- Bush lying about WMD --- wouldn't have been in place.

If Bush lied about WMD, there are too many others who were also lying. This is a bumpersticker tagline with absolutely no meaning. This divisive partisan quackery completely ignores recent history. The "lies" were already in place from the prior Administration. Invasion was the only way we do now know for certain.

Two: You can't say whether a war five years from now would cost more or less than this, since the majority of the costs from the current war have been due to incompetence and poor planning. If your argument is that a war under Bush wouldn't have cost any less, then I'll agree, but under a competent and honest president, no.

... except Bush is not the lone ranger on these decisions. This woeful lack of understanding how "war" is authorized and initiated constitutes more partisan quackery. You just like saying Bush. I'm not convinced the war would've been any cheaper under one President more "competent" and "honest" as you have to lack a little of both to even run.

The tax cuts increase output, but the tax revenue on that output is not enough to offset the lost revenue from lower taxes. This is what the Treasury Dept says. I can't believe I have to explain this kind of basic arithmetic. Tomorrow's lesson will be addition, Einstein.

Once more: I agree that tax cuts increase output. I disagree that tax cuts increase tax revenue. The Treasury Dept agrees with me. Nobody with any knowledge of economics agrees with you or Chongo (but every Republican presidential candidate agrees with you guys).

Again, that's not what the Dept of Treasury paper you cited illustrated and the conclusion you copy-pasted from that paper clearly states the exact opposite. Did you read it?

So... you're an internet economist now too.

[BRussell]

So ebuddy, I want to get this straight. You believe that if taxes are cut, that revenues will be higher than what they would have been without the tax cuts? And if that's a true characterization of your belief, how many economics professionals do you think also hold that view, Republican, conservative or otherwise?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So ebuddy, I want to get this straight. You believe that if taxes are cut, that revenues will be higher than what they would have been without the tax cuts? And if that's a true characterization of your belief, how many economics professionals do you think also hold that view, Republican, conservative or otherwise?

He does have a valid point about tax cuts increasing revenue. But, as I pointed out above, the equation of tax cuts=revenue increase is valid only IF those tax cuts are offset by reducing future government spending (as quoted in the Treasury Department position paper quoted above). So yes, tax cuts will lead to increased revenue IF the government cuts it spending concurrently, and by a similar amount, when issuing a tax cut.

[BRussell]

No dcmacdaddy, as tie has been trying to say, that paper says output will increase (when accompanied by equivalent spending cuts). That means economic growth will be higher. No one doubts that. But it doesn't say that revenues will increase. What no economist believes, even the most Republican ones, even the ones currently serving in Bush's cabinet, is that you can cut taxes and then get more taxes than you otherwise would have gotten. I think you could argue that you won't lose as much as the raw numbers would suggest - let's say you cut taxes by 200 billion dollars, but that increases economic growth, and you therefore only lose 180 billion dollars in revenues. Fine, I'd say it's at least possible in theory (in theory, because the problem is that in reality, we just take that 180 billion on as debt, which adds to the budget in the form of interest payments, which therefore results in an even greater loss of revenue than the 200 billion cut in the first place). But you can't increase economic growth enough to actually pull in more than the 200 billion you've lost.

This idea is 1) at the core of Republican political economics (maybe we should call it economic creationism), and 2) demonstrably puts our country into debt. ebuddy earlier said that tie's partisanship on this matter is what is wrong with our country. I'd submit that instead, it is citizens' willingness to vote for politicians who espouse these ideas that is what is wrong with our country.

[Chongo]

OpinionJournal - Extra
Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong

[peeb]

I am not inclined to read more garbage defending Bush's incompetence. He lied. Thousands of people died and the US is involved in the greatest blunder of recent history, its moral leadership in the world has been squandered.

[ironknee]

i can't believe these clowns are still supporting this...em...clown

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, that's not what the Dept of Treasury paper you cited illustrated and the conclusion you copy-pasted from that paper clearly states the exact opposite. Did you read it?

So... you're an internet economist now too.

I have accurately stated the conclusions of the Treasury Dept study. I can't believe you are still arguing about this.

As an extreme example, say we cut taxes to zero. Output will increase, we both agree. Your position is that tax revenue will also increase. But in fact, tax revenue will be zero. So you are manifestly wrong. (But, I don't expect you to admit it, since you are still hung up on Iraq's imaginary WMD. ) Chongo and dcmacdaddy, you are both also wrong, for the same reason.

(In more detail: There are two extremes, of course, with the other at 100% taxation. The Laffer curve interpolates between them. But basically everybody agrees that we are on the lower part of the Laffer curve, and the Treasury Dept study took it as completely obvious.)

[peeb]

Few economists really believe that the Laffer Curve is really a parabola. Extrapolating from the two extremes does not tell you what the middle looks like.

[tie]

Who said that the Laffer curve was a parabola or what the middle looked like? Do you know what a parabola is? ({(x,y) : y = a x^2 + b})

[peeb]

I do, indeed know what a parabola is. The Laffer Curve is often shown in economic text books as a parabola, or some other smooth curve. My point, as you know, is that in real life there is no smooth curve, but rather a chaotic and unpredictable space in between the two extremes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So ebuddy, I want to get this straight. You believe that if taxes are cut, that revenues will be higher than what they would have been without the tax cuts? And if that's a true characterization of your belief, how many economics professionals do you think also hold that view, Republican, conservative or otherwise?

I believe that if you want to argue that tax cuts do not increase revenue, the Dept of Treasury paper cited does not make that point. Now... if you're asking me how many "economics professionals" are proponents of supply-side economics the answer would be; a great many. The actual fact of the matter is buried somewhere in the middle which of course, is no fun.

For example; the CBO "new budget update" in May of 2005 claimed that it wasn't tax cuts that increased revenue during that period stating rather; "one possible reason that revenues are coming in faster than it forecast earlier this year is that increases in income may be more concentrated among high-income taxpayers than it anticipated. High-income taxpayers pay taxes at higher rates, so an increasing concentration of income results in a higher level of revenue. In its August report, CBO stresses that much of the recent growth of revenues has occurred because of a boom in corporate tax receipts rather than in taxes on wages and salaries." Strangely, this is a claim often cited by proponents of supply-side in advocating a lower tax rate, encouraging the actual payment of taxes. Another claim by the CBO in 2005;

"Federal revenues remain low as a share of the economy, and the long-term fiscal outlook remains grim. CBO’s new report reveals that revenues will fall as a percent of the economy after 2006, assuming that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and current AMT relief are extended. Under those circumstances, revenues over the next ten years would average 17.1 percent of GDP, lower than the average in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s." Problem is we're not only now after 2006, we're almost to 2008 and yet Bush is still touting how tax cuts have led to increased revenue again this period. The CBO was simply wrong on this issue. Of course, there are a host of reasons for higher than expected revenues, but if the CBO were correct on their "grim" assessment, Bush would not be touting higher than expected revenues and attributing them to the lower tax rate. It should be noted however that I'm not advocating the elimination of taxes or even an increase in tax cuts. There is a point of diminishing returns.

What is widely accepted among economists?
- marginal tax rates exceeding 40% exert destructive influences on the incentive of people to work and use resources wisely. The relative economic boom of the 80's is responsible for converting a whole lot of skeptics. The CBO in 1987; "The data show considerable evidence of a very significant revenue response among taxpayers at the highest income levels.". Of course, we can argue the merits of supply-side or the merits of increasing the tax rate, but what is beyond refute is the fact that the Federal Government collected more tax revenue in every year of Reagan's term than in any year prior.

The problem? Spending. Economists acknowledge it. The paper and statement by the Dept of Treasury cited by tie acknowledges it.

The conclusion?
- economists say;
"we generally disagree about these issues in part because there is no consensus about the size of the relevant elasticities. The more elastic that supply and demand are in any market, the more taxes in that market distort behavior, and the more likely it is that a tax cut will raise tax revenue. There is no debate, however, about the general lesson: How much revenue the government gains or loses from a tax change cannot be computed just by looking at tax rates. It also depends on how the tax change affects people's behavior."
and...
"the academic literature on this topic is far from conclusive."

- Internet economists, "experts", and anti-(R) zealots say;
"tax cuts bad"

As always, the truth exists somewhere in the mad middle where no one wants to hang out around here.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

As an extreme example, say we cut taxes to zero. Output will increase, we both agree. Your position is that tax revenue will also increase. But in fact, tax revenue will be zero. So you are manifestly wrong. (But, I don't expect you to admit it, since you are still hung up on Iraq's imaginary WMD. ) Chongo and dcmacdaddy, you are both also wrong, for the same reason.

(In more detail: There are two extremes, of course, with the other at 100% taxation. The Laffer curve interpolates between them. But basically everybody agrees that we are on the lower part of the Laffer curve, and the Treasury Dept study took it as completely obvious.)

No it didn't and in typical fashion, you've resorted to "extremes".

"Tax rate of zero". As if anyone is arguing for a zero tax rate. If you're trying to conclude how destructive our current tax rate is, the Dept of Treasury conclusion you cited illustrates the exact opposite. Read it again.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I believe that if you want to argue that tax cuts do not increase revenue, the Dept of Treasury paper cited does not make that point.

Maybe I misunderstand, but it sounds like you're saying that this paper does not make the point that tax cuts do not increase revenue? Or are you saying that the paper does not make the point that tax cuts increase revenue?

Now... if you're asking me how many "economics professionals" are proponents of supply-side economics the answer would be; a great many. The actual fact of the matter is buried somewhere in the middle which of course, is no fun.

I'm asking you what I asked you, not something else, and not something in the middle. "Supply side economics" is a vague term with multiple meanings, but "tax cuts increase revenues" is very specific. Or, another way people say it is that "tax cuts pay for themselves." None of your quotes make that claim. At best, they say that tax cuts can very marginally increase economic growth, on the order of .7% over several decades, assuming that the tax cuts are accompanied by corresponding spending cuts. But the most Republican of Republican economists, including economists currently working for the Bush administration, reject the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Maybe you agreed with that in your first sentence - if so, I apologize but I honestly didn't understand it because of the double negative.

- Internet economists, "experts", and anti-(R) zealots say;
"tax cuts bad"

What we say is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Why do we say this? I want to state it carefully, because it's not zealotry, it's trying to counter falsehoods that harm our country.

1) Republican politicians propose tax cuts. They are, no surprise, popular and pass easily.
2) Republicans do not propose commensurate spending cuts.
3) Republicans say this is OK because "tax cuts pay for themselves."
4) But tax cuts do not pay for themselves, and therefore we pile on the debt.

This matters. It is a policy that increases our country's debt. Voters should reject, laugh at, criticize, and vote against politicians who make this argument.

As always, the truth exists somewhere in the mad middle where no one wants to hang out around here.

When you move into the middle from true towards false, you're left with something less than true. Democrats, no doubt, have their own economic falsehoods. The Myth of the Rational Voter is a compilation of mostly-liberal fallacies that voters believe in, if you're looking for some. But this idea that we can cut taxes and not have to worry about the deficit is certainly a conservative fallacy, and it's an important one because Republican politicians follow through on it with such gusto.

[Chongo]

Collectivists are afraid for this to pass because it put power back were it belongs, in the hand of the people, and ends the forced redistribution of wealth

The power to tax involves the power to destroy
Chief Justice Marshall , McCulloch v. Maryland 1819

What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

* Abolishes the IRS
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
* Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Maybe I misunderstand, but it sounds like you're saying that this paper does not make the point that tax cuts do not increase revenue? Or are you saying that the paper does not make the point that tax cuts increase revenue?I'm asking you what I asked you, not something else, and not something in the middle.

Of course not and this is exactly what I'm pointing out. People don't want to talk about the middle, because that's where common sense is. There's nothing sensational about common sense. You want me to make an absolute statement; "tax cuts increase revenue" which would be partially true and partially false contingent upon a host of variables. I don't like arguments that try to frame the debate in black and white with blatant disregard for any grey. A tax rate of 80% reduced to say; 60% would in fact see an increase in revenue, but I will not be arguing absolutist rhetoric today. As I said clearly; there is a point of diminishing returns. Also for the sake of sanity- we're talking about the continuance of a cut, not an additional host of cuts. Unless I missed something.

To your question; This paper does not make the point that tax cuts decrease revenue. At least, not convincingly.

*As an aside; I love how this conversation diverts to a concern over the revenue collection of the Federal Government as if the notion that perhaps it collects too much already is ignored. Given the host of criticism I've seen of Bush's spending policy, why we'd be concerned about how to give them more to squander is beyond me.

"Supply side economics" is a vague term with multiple meanings, but "tax cuts increase revenues" is very specific. Or, another way people say it is that "tax cuts pay for themselves." None of your quotes make that claim. At best, they say that tax cuts can very marginally increase economic growth, on the order of .7% over several decades, assuming that the tax cuts are accompanied by corresponding spending cuts. But the most Republican of Republican economists, including economists currently working for the Bush administration, reject the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.

First of all, is anyone arguing the merits of decreased spending? Good. So long as we've established the obvious. Also, why would the fact that this is Bush's team be of any importance to me. I don't put as much stock in (R)s and (D)s as... I'm guessing you. I couldn't care less if the information came from Cheney's brother. What is it his team of economists support? Free market? Smaller role of government? Economists certainly seem to back one Bush appointee; Edward Lazear. When discussion of repealing Bush's tax cuts occurred in 2005, Citigroup's senior economist warned against it. Many economists also consider stock prices, business investments, and hiring among a host of other concerns. It's not as cut and dry as; "this-bad, this-good".

Also, "supply-side" might be vague in your opinion, but I'd be willing to bet it's specific enough to elicit your general opposition. Am I wrong?

Maybe you agreed with that in your first sentence - if so, I apologize but I honestly didn't understand it because of the double negative.

What we say is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Why do we say this? I want to state it carefully, because it's not zealotry, it's trying to counter falsehoods that harm our country.

"falsehoods" are subject to considerable debate.

1) Republican politicians propose tax cuts. They are, no surprise, popular and pass easily.

Unfortunately, so too have spending proposals during this Administration.

2) Republicans do not propose commensurate spending cuts.

They certainly have not. Hence, the disgust with them in the 2006 election. I'm hoping they at least got part of that message.

3) Republicans say this is OK because "tax cuts pay for themselves."

I don't know that this has been a general mantra of Republicans. There is a point of diminishing returns with tax cut proposals and they always need to be tempered with decreased spending.

4) But tax cuts do not pay for themselves, and therefore we pile on the debt.

A recession, a bear market in stocks, terrorist attacks, and wars certainly don't help. I just want to make sure our memory spans at least a few years here.

This matters. It is a policy that increases our country's debt. Voters should reject, laugh at, criticize, and vote against politicians who make this argument.

Of course it matters. However, it is not something to be rejected a priori, laughed at, criticized, and voted against because it has a history of being partially accurate. As always, the economy functions in accordance with a host of complex variables that make statements like the above seem simpleton IMO.

But this idea that we can cut taxes and not have to worry about spanthe deficit is certainly a conservative fallacy, and it's an important one because Republican politicians follow through on it with such gusto.

The fact of the matter is that we need to temper spending. Something this administration has not done and they've lost the Hill over it. There's this notion of all or nothing. I think we need to go back and determine what of those cuts makes sense and what of them does not. It'd behoove you to acknowledge that while Bush's team may be in general opposition, there is considerable debate among economists. While you tout their seeming opposition, I'm not sure you'd wholesale support what they do.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course not and this is exactly what I'm pointing out. People don't want to talk about the middle, because that's where common sense is. There's nothing sensational about common sense. You want me to make an absolute statement; "tax cuts increase revenue" which would be partially true and partially false contingent upon a host of variables. I don't like arguments that try to frame the debate in black and white with blatant disregard for any grey. A tax rate of 80% reduced to say; 60% would in fact see an increase in revenue, but I will not be arguing absolutist rhetoric today. As I said clearly; there is a point of diminishing returns. Also for the sake of sanity- we're talking about the continuance of a cut, not an additional host of cuts. Unless I missed something.

To your question; This paper does not make the point that tax cuts decrease revenue. At least, not convincingly.

*As an aside; I love how this conversation diverts to a concern over the revenue collection of the Federal Government as if the notion that perhaps it collects too much already is ignored. Given the host of criticism I've seen of Bush's spending policy, why we'd be concerned about how to give them more to squander is beyond me.

The reason we're not talking about this "common sense middle ground" is that the politicians in question do not make merely this claim. What they claim is that "tax cuts pay for themselves," that we get more money when we cut taxes than we would have had we not cut taxes. That's the claim. I think it's fair to say that this claim is the core of Republican fiscal policy since Reagan and continuing through to today. You refuse to reject it because you say that would be too absolute for you, even though even the most "supply-side" economists reject it completely. This, IMO, is a serious problem: The unwillingness to reject false and harmful ideas in order to not be too "absolute." How far do you take this relativism? Are there no absolute truths? Do we move away from every truth just because there's a mushy middle to jump into?

First of all, is anyone arguing the merits of decreased spending? Good. So long as we've established the obvious.

I'd certainly argue about spending. There are quite a few areas where I'd like to increase government spending; for example, I'd like to get health insurance completely out of the for-profit private sector. If we could do it and still cut spending, of course that would be great - our government already spends more per GDP and per capita than any other country that HAS government health insurance. And of course I'd love to cut spending on plenty of things that I don't like. But for me, when it comes to things like health care and education and minimum wage, it's a moral issue rather than a strictly economic one. But that's probably for another debate.

Also, why would the fact that this is Bush's team be of any importance to me. I don't put as much stock in (R)s and (D)s as... I'm guessing you. I couldn't care less if the information came from Cheney's brother. What is it his team of economists support? Free market? Smaller role of government? Economists certainly seem to back one Bush appointee; Edward Lazear. When discussion of repealing Bush's tax cuts occurred in 2005, Citigroup's senior economist warned against it. Many economists also consider stock prices, business investments, and hiring among a host of other concerns. It's not as cut and dry as; "this-bad, this-good".

Come on, ebuddy, the reason I mentioned Bush's team should be obvious. Bush says "tax cuts pay for themselves" in his speeches, and has implemented his tax policy on this philosophy - cut taxes, forget about "pay-as-you-go." The fact that not only economists outside the administration say it's nonsense, but that even his own economists reject it shows how much of a fantasy it is.

Also, "supply-side" might be vague in your opinion, but I'd be willing to bet it's specific enough to elicit your general opposition. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. It just depends on the specifics.

"falsehoods" are subject to considerable debate.

Not in this case. You'll see no considerable debate about whether tax cuts pay for themselves among even the most conservative, Republican, supply-side economists (not to mention liberal ones).

Unfortunately, so too have spending proposals during this Administration.

But this is exactly the point ebuddy. You can't separate high spending from this economic philosophy. If tax cuts increase revenues, then your spending increases can be paid for with tax cuts! You certainly don't have to balance your tax cuts with any spending decreases, like those silly liberal Democratic pay-as-you-goers try to make us do.

They certainly have not. Hence, the disgust with them in the 2006 election. I'm hoping they at least got part of that message.

I don't think spending had the slightest bit to do with 2006 - spending increases and tax cuts have formed the basis of Republican economic policy since Reagan. But perhaps that's another debate.

I don't know that this has been a general mantra of Republicans. There is a point of diminishing returns with tax cut proposals and they always need to be tempered with decreased spending.

I'm not sure if every Republican believes it - in fact, I sincerely doubt if many of them at all do. But I've never heard a Democrat make this argument, every politician who does make this argument is a Republican, and the leading Republican presidential candidates this year are all making this claim. Don't try to claim this isn't a partisan issue. I'll say this though - I voted against my (D) Senator Baucus largely because he voted for Bush's tax cuts.

A recession, a bear market in stocks, terrorist attacks, and wars certainly don't help. I just want to make sure our memory spans at least a few years here.

The stock market certainly mattered, and so did the recession (though very short and mild). But I believe that usually things like wars and terrorist attacks are said to increase economic growth, via the same "supply side" theories you mentioned above (more money going out to people to build weapons or to pay for clean-up and repairs).

Of course it matters. However, it is not something to be rejected a priori, laughed at, criticized, and voted against because it has a history of being partially accurate. As always, the economy functions in accordance with a host of complex variables that make statements like the above seem simpleton IMO.

I'll just restate what I wrote earlier that moving into the middle toward a falsehood (that "tax cuts pay for themselves") means you're moving away from the truth. That belief has no history of being "partially accurate."

The fact of the matter is that we need to temper spending. Something this administration has not done and they've lost the Hill over it. There's this notion of all or nothing. I think we need to go back and determine what of those cuts makes sense and what of them does not. It'd behoove you to acknowledge that while Bush's team may be in general opposition, there is considerable debate among economists. While you tout their seeming opposition, I'm not sure you'd wholesale support what they do.

ebuddy, I used some of Bush's economists as an example of how even economists with the most extreme incentive imaginable to support Bush's philosophy (i.e., working for him) still reject it. But economists outside of the administration certainly don't believe tax cuts pay for themselves. Jack Kemp doesn't claim it. The Cato people don't claim it. I wouldn't want to say that NO economist would say it, but I've never heard one. If you think it's debatable, please show me where some serious person somewhere claims it.

I've been through this debate so many times, and when I've looked at this all I see is cato-types claiming that no one has ever claimed that "tax cuts pay for themselves," that it's all a strawman made up by the left that no conservative has ever believed. Here's the latest example from just a few days ago. And yet, every day out on the stump, Bush, Giuliani, Romney et al. are saying exactly that, and people on the internet are repeating it as fact.

[BadKosh]

Unless you get the Ass-canyons in Washington DC to control spending, and leave out the pork and useless BS, the tax cuts won't really help in the long run. Bailing out inept corporations is also a bad idea. IF what they did/produced was of some value, another company will fill the space. GIVING money to other countries, or welfare is a poor choice too. Fear of starving will get most of the lazy bums off their useless butts.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

GIVING money to other countries, or welfare is a poor choice too. Fear of starving will get most of the lazy bums off their useless butts.

This is pretty obviously a pretty offensive and grossly inaccurate characterization of famine.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

GIVING money to other countries, or welfare is a poor choice too. Fear of starving will get most of the lazy bums off their useless butts.

Thankfully, we have you, working hard, to counteract all the lazy bums in the world.

[peeb]

Well, I think the Great Depression was another example of the failure of capitalism and the motivation of starving to death to make people work hard.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Of course not and this is exactly what I'm pointing out. People don't want to talk about the middle, because that's where common sense is. There's nothing sensational about common sense. You want me to make an absolute statement; "tax cuts increase revenue" which would be partially true and partially false contingent upon a host of variables. I don't like arguments that try to frame the debate in black and white with blatant disregard for any grey. A tax rate of 80% reduced to say; 60% would in fact see an increase in revenue, but I will not be arguing absolutist rhetoric today. As I said clearly; there is a point of diminishing returns. Also for the sake of sanity- we're talking about the continuance of a cut, not an additional host of cuts. Unless I missed something.

ebuddy, you yourself are not part of the middle. You wrote:

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Tax cuts do lead to increased revenue because it increases the tax base. That's what increased output is Einstein.

This statement is false. If you want to try to pretend to part of the middle, you should start by putting some factual accuracy into your posts.

Originally Posted by peeb

I do, indeed know what a parabola is. The Laffer Curve is often shown in economic text books as a parabola, or some other smooth curve. My point, as you know, is that in real life there is no smooth curve, but rather a chaotic and unpredictable space in between the two extremes.

Sorry, I still don't know what you mean. But I don't think it is important.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

Sorry, I still don't know what you mean. But I don't think it is important.

I mean that, classically, the Laffer Curve looks like this:

But it's much more likely that in reality, it looks like this:

Not a smooth curve, but a chaotic mess. Images from Wikipedia.

[BadKosh]

Zogby: Majority Favor Strikes on Iran

Monday, October 29, 2007 9:47 PM

A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.

[OldManMac]

All that Zogby poll proves, if it's correct, is that people are easy to scare and gullible. I find it suspicious, however, as the majority of Americans are tired of this administration's lies.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

All that Zogby poll proves, if it's correct, is that people are easy to scare and gullible. I find it suspicious, however, as the majority of Americans are tired of this administration's lies.

A. Could you find me a poll that states this?
B. How could people be tired of "lies' if HIllary is the Democrat front runner?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. Could you find me a poll that states this?
B. How could people be tired of "lies' if HIllary is the Democrat front runner?

It all depends on what you definition of "is" is

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

ebuddy, you yourself are not part of the middle. You wrote:

Tax cuts do lead to increased revenue. Remember, I was arguing against one who unequivocally stated they do not. Which technically, is also inaccurate. Plus, I don't think we're talking about additional cuts, I believe in context of Bush's proposal, we're really just talking about the continuance of a cut. There's a difference. If the CBO had been correct in their 2005 assessment, there would be no revenue increase to mistakenly attribute.

Outside of using argumentative banter to counter argumentative sentiment (which in hindsight was unnecessary-I admit) I've since added that they would need to be tempered by spending and considered among a host of market conditions in figuring an optimal rate.

This statement is false. If you want to try to pretend to part of the middle, you should start by putting some factual accuracy into your posts.

The statement that they do not lead to increased revenue is also false. Again, contingent upon a host of variables and in consideration of the overall rate itself.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, I think the Great Depression was another example of the failure of capitalism and the motivation of starving to death to make people work hard.

Your example of the failures of capitalism is from the late 20's? How is it that it flourishes not only in the US today, but now Britain, Europe, and China where it never existed before?

What caused the Great Depression? The Federal Reserve. A host of errors including a knee-jerk reaction to the market crash in 29, shrinking the supply of money by a third, causing several banking crashes, wiping out any possible buying power and confidence, and forcing almost 30% into unemployment. A big cry-out to the government for having thrust us into the errors of Social Security and a host of new subsequent welfare cases.

The Great Depression was not due to "failures of capitalism", it was government intervention.