Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 02:26pm PT
|
jghedge,
More and more people are registering independent, they will always vote their pocketbook, and right now, that's not a vote for Obama.
The evil one
This is the great failure of your party. Americans are NOT only about their pocketbooks. If so, we would never have entered WWII. The Greatest Generation was not that because they were the Greediest Generation.
Israel was not created through the efforts of America and others because it was in the best interest of their pocketbooks to do so. Many of the best things that we do are not in our financial interests.
This is not what makes America Great. That we are the greediest. That we are the ugliest. But keep acting that way, keep appealing to that instinct.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 02:43pm PT
|
The biggest problem is that the GOP candidates have to pander so much to the Tea Partiers.
When asked if they would consider a budget deal that included a 10-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, they all said no (even Huntsman, who I think has more sense).
Pretty much all reputable economists have said the only way we can fix long-term deficit issues is to have both cuts to spending and revenue increases. And yet every GOP candidate is happy to pander to the idea that we can do it just by cutting spending.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 02:56pm PT
|
Pretty much all reputable economists have said the only way we can fix long-term deficit issues is to have both cuts to spending and revenue increases.
Stevep,
I think that's true for the states. I don't believe "all reputable economists" agree on anything, but certainly not on the need for revenue increases if by revenue increase you mean an increase in tax rates. I say this for at least the following reasons:
1. Federal tax revenues have fluctuated within a fairly narrow range since the 1950's. Spending increased dramatically in the last ten years, causing the imbalance.
2. There is no economic consensus on the wisdom of "fixing" the long-term deficit issues. While most business economists with whom I deal agree that we cannot sustain the level of spending to which we have committed, there is no agreement that we must move to a balanced budget, for just one example. The economy expands over the long run, as does productivity. In order to maintain a stable price level, the money supply also needs to increase, and the easiest way to do that is by monetizing the debt.
3. The real area of concern is the size of the debt relative to GDP. Right now, that's too high. If GDP grows, and spending grows less, that ratio gets better. The real problem here is growing GDP. Both spending cuts and tax increases are contractionary, ceteris paribus. Instead, we need to focus on what spending and which taxes encourage growth, and which ones inhibit it.
I would say about the only thing that pretty much all reputable economists agree on is the need for floating exchange rates of international currency, but even there, the gold bugs dissent.
John
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 03:10pm PT
|
tax increases are contractionary
This is simply a lie. It can be true in some cases, but stating it without qualification WHEN YOU KNOW BETTER makes you, Elezarian, a liar.
When the rich and corporations are sitting on piles of cash, cash which they are not spending but "investing" into gold, and the govt in GOP parlance "confiscate" that excess cash horde via taxes and spend it on say, infrastructure, then the net outcome is far from "contractionary".
Feel free to engage in your sophistry and half-truth bullsh#t, but don't expect that you won't be called on it because you pretty it up with big words and a lack of coarse language.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 03:17pm PT
|
El cap,
Read what I said. I said they are contractionary ceteris paribus -- meaning all other things being held constant. There is overwhelming evidence of that in the economic literature, including a study published in the June, 2010, American Economic Review, written by the head of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors (at that time) and her husband.
So please, be careful when you use the word "lie" or, by implication, "liar." I do know better. So should you.
John
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 03:30pm PT
|
More sophistry. Just like the parable of the scorpion, it's in your nature, you just can't help yourself.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 03:54pm PT
|
What's to comment on? They filed challenges in five districts. AFAIK, one or two of them have already been rejected, they were bound to find a sympathetic bench in one or another district. We all knew this would end up before the Supreme Court. So what exactly do you expect commentary about?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 05:42pm PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 08:47pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^ Commie ^^^^^^
^^^^^^ Liberal ^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Socialist ^^^^^^
^^^^^^ Tree Hugger ^^^^^^
^^^^^^ Climber ^^^^^^
(Where does it end???)
|
|
Gal
Trad climber
a semi lucid consciousness
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 11:35pm PT
|
Romney really meant that corporations are made up of people, sometimes just a few and sometimes hundreds of thousands. Who do you think owns corporations????
So, I have worked for a corporation back in the Bush days. I thought then as I do now that he did not actually win the election either time. At the company I worked for, some VP's and the CEO had signed postcards by Bush pinned to their walls. But this is in NO WAY what I believed in (Bush & his politics)... so if this corporation is made up of thousands of people, and theoretically donated money to the republican party or candidates (as they currently would be able to do/since apparently corporations are people too), this in NO WAY represented what I believe. How is this fair? THem speaking for me and pouring money to elect someone I don't believe in, yet I can't do anything about it? So really, even if there are a thousand people at that corporation, only a few are speaking for many, how is this new legislation right? It's a way to circumvent the true beliefs of the PEOPLE-Individuals-living breathing human beings, each vote counting to elect, rather than bullying corporations where you either have to quit if your company doesn't believe what you think, or just suck it up. It's just wrong. A corporation is not a person. 1 person who owns a corporation shouldn't speak in any political way for the few or many that works for them. How is this not obvious and outrageous?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2011 - 11:41pm PT
|
You worked for a corporation. the stock holders own it not you, unless you are a stock holder.
They have the same right to act collectively as you do by joining any other interest group, or individually.
Those post cards were most likely for individual donations and support anyway. They are commonly sent out for modest contributions to politicians from all parties.
|
|
Gal
Trad climber
a semi lucid consciousness
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 12:20am PT
|
So jhedge, you aren't against "Citizens United". I hear what you are saying. The corporation I worked for wouldn't be able to afford pouring money towards a candidate (I don't think). Is transparency going to be a reality? We may be able to see the effects during the next presidential campaign.
TGT-do you think "Citizens United" seems ok? Tell me why?
I still find it disconcerting and wonder why this new rule would even NEED to exist... it feels like there must be some underhanded reason, or why bother getting it passed? I don't have high trust in this sort of thing.
I liked this quote "Too frequently the extension of corporate constitutional rights is a zero-sum game that diminishes the rights and powers of real individuals," attorney Carl Mayer wrote in a paper on corporations and the Bill of Rights. "Equality of constitutional rights plus an inequality of legislated and de facto powers leads inexorably to the supremacy of artificial over real persons."
from the article: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/196469/20110811/mitt-romney-corporations-people-mitt-romney-corporations-citizens-united-legal-personhood.htm
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 12:46am PT
|
Gal,
Are you saying that individual rights don't matter if they're aggregated?
El Cap
I realize that your stock answer will be that anything with which you disagree is either a lie or sophistry, so I offer this for those others who might be reading our exchange.
In the June, 2010 issue of the most prestigious economics journal in the world, the American Economic Review specifically at pages 763-807, you will find the following article by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer: "The Macroeceonomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks." Ms. Romer was, at the time she wrote this article, the chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors.
The abstract reads as follows:
"This paper investigates the impact of tax changes on economic activity. We use the narrative record, such sa presidential speeches and Congressional reports, to identify the size, timing, and principal motivation for all major post-war tax policy actions. This analysis allows us to separate legislated changes into those taken for reasons related to prospective economic conditions and those taken for more exogenous reasons. The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes. [Emphasis supplied]
Call me a liar if you wish, but your position on this issue strongly resembles that of the climate change deniers. I challenge you to find a paper published in a refereed, peer-reviewed journal that says that tax increases are not contractionary.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 01:41am PT
|
"Are you saying that individual rights don't matter if they're aggregated?"
Individuals have rights. They each get one vote. Just because a bunch of individuals vote the same way, doesn't mean they get an extra vote because they're aggregated. (Or have shiteloads of moola.)
John, you make this argument often- that corporations are entities of themselves, comprised of individuals of like interest. Corporations are not democracies comprised of a bunch of individuals who have a vote in the direction of the organization, each with equal influence. If such was the case, I'd buy into your argument a bit more, but then we'd probably be talking about a veeeerrrry different kind of political system.
Corporations are run by a relatively small group of individuals, specifically for a capitalistic gain. They aren't countries. If anything, the closest parallel government model one might find for a corporation is a dictatorship.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 01:47am PT
|
Apogee,
I could make the same argument much more forcefully about unions. Corporations spread their donations accross the political spectrum. While they tend to give more to Republicans than Democrats, that reflects the fact that Republicans don't view business as the enemy. Also, you generally don't need to buy stock in a corporation to obtain a job.
Unions, on the other hand, give virtually all of their cash to Democrats. Their membership is not nearly as overwhelmingly Democratic as their donations. I know plenty of Republican union members, many of whom joined solely because their work required it, who are totally unrepresented.
The fact remains that the supporters of limiting corporate donations, by and large, want no such limit on union donations. All that shows is that this is an attempt to stifle speech with which the would-be stiflers disagree.
John
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 01:48am PT
|
We've come full circle back to fighting barbarians at arms reach.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 01:55am PT
|
"I could make the same argument much more forcefully about unions. Corporations spread their donations accross the political spectrum. While they tend to give more to Republicans than Democrats, that reflects the fact that Republicans don't view business as the enemy. "
While I can understand (and agree with) the similarity in political influence with unions, that still blurs and diverts the issue. Without a doubt, one of the tenets of our governmental system is the concept of individuals steering their own destinies via their elected leaders. Anytime that system is subverted by a group saying that they somehow have better or different rights (or greater influence), we are becoming Animal Farm.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 01:58am PT
|
Donald,
Romer is trying to undo the effect of her own paper. What she doesn't address is the difference in economic output between transfer payments and expenditures for basic research and infrastucture that are more in the nature of investment.
To put this in context, though, I said this morning that tax increases and spending cuts are contractionary, ceteris paribus. El Cap called me a liar for saying that. I cited the 2010 American Economic Review article by the Romers as evidence of a peer-reviewed study by an obvious Obama ally confirming that tax increases are contractionary. Hedge's "rebuttal" article merely shows that even a left-leaning economist agrees with what I said, namely that spending cuts and tax increases are contractionary. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether I was lying.
I still challenge anyone to cite a peer-reviewed study in a refereed journal that shows that tax increases are not contractionary.
John
P.S.
I find it significant that hedge's citation is to an op-ed piece, rather than a peer-reviewed journal article.
What she really is saying, though, is what I said -- there is no consensus among economists that eliminating the federal deficit is such a good idea.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2011 - 02:00am PT
|
So I go back to what I said before, apogee. Do we lose our rights as individuals when we act in concert?
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!