to
reality,
exonomy
Republicans: fighting to produce even more prosperity to all; all of those
who already have it. Along with giving prosperity to those already rich goes
the corollary of preventing prosperity for everyone else. It works every
time republicans are in power.
Hawke
I'm not defending the democrats, because they have their share of problems;
but yeah, the repubs have been corporate stooges since *at least* the Reagan
era. The end result of unregulated capitalism is obvious.
If that were true, I wouldn't have said otherwise. However, if it were
true, there would be evidence other than "Because Rush told me so."
Just because someone makes you feel smart doesn't mean they aren't filling
your head with lies. Engage your skepticism the most when you most *want*
to believe.
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:41:28 -0500, "Adam Corolla"
The CBO said so.
Care to dispute it?
You really really need to take your own advise.
Gunner
"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr
I hate to interfere with a good fight, but maybe it would be a better fight
if it were fought on a little higher plane. Gunner, what the CBO has said is
that tax revenue increases amount to roughly 17% (labor) and 50% (capital)
of the tax revenues LOST through lower tax rates. In other words, cutting
taxes cuts revenues, but not by the full amount of tax cuts. And this is
exactly what most sophisticated supply-siders have been saying for some time
now. If you looked at the Wikipedia entry for supply-side economics (one of
their better efforts), you see the "left-side, right-side" issue that's the
core of intelligent analysis of tax-cutting effects today.
An easier way to see what's going on in this debate is to start with Bruce
Bartlett's op-ed article in the NYT earlier this year. Bartlett was one of
the original supply-siders and arguably its strongest proponent. He was an
advisor to Reagan and an author of the Kemp-Roth bill that was the roadmap
for Reaganomics. You can view NYT articles for free now but I don't know if
you'll have to sign in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06bartlett.html
Here's about as much of it as I can paste without worrying about copyright:
=============================================AS one who was present at the creation of "supply-side economics" back in
the 1970s, I think it is long past time that the phrase be put to rest. It
did its job, creating a new consensus among economists on how to look at the
national economy. But today it has become a frequently misleading and
meaningless buzzword that gets in the way of good economic policy.
Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for
cutting taxes under any and all circumstances. No longer do its advocates in
Congress and elsewhere confine themselves to cutting marginal tax rates -
the tax on each additional dollar earned - as the original supply-siders
did. Rather, they support even the most gimmicky, economically dubious tax
cuts with the same intensity.
The original supply-siders suggested that some tax cuts, under very special
circumstances, might actually raise federal revenues. For example, cutting
the capital gains tax rate might induce an unlocking effect that would cause
more gains to be realized, thus causing more taxes to be paid on such gains
even at a lower rate.
But today it is common to hear tax cutters claim, implausibly, that all tax
cuts raise revenue. Last year, President Bush said, "You cut taxes and the
tax revenues increase." Senator John McCain told National Review magazine
last month that "tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase
revenues." Last week, Steve Forbes endorsed Rudolph Giuliani for the White
House, saying, "He's seen the results of supply-side economics firsthand -
higher revenues from lower taxes."
=============================================The rest of it is worth reading. It's pretty short and will give you a good
idea of what smart and knowledgeable supply-siders have to say for
themselves today.
Cool, that's pretty much in line with what I'm saying. Tax cuts result in
increased spending but the bulk of that spending is on foreign goods and
services, meaning that while tax cuts do stimulate the US economy, they are
an inefficient way to do so and result in significantly less money being
spent in the US economy than if that money were kept by and spent buy the
government. Therefore tax cuts would not result in increased revenue. It
just doesn't make sense if you think about it.
Once again, if someone can point me directly to a reliable source that shows
tax cuts consistently resulting in increased revenues, I'll happily admit
I'm wrong. Surely, with all the right-wing web sites out there, there must
be thousands of links to reliable sources of this information?
It's a typical neocon tactic. Repeat a lie often (Democrats are big
spenders!) then speak as though the lie is common knowledge ("Why would
anyone vote for a Democrat--we need to DEcrease spending!") and no one seems
to check the facts to find out it's a lie.
Once again, and there is no possible way to stress this enough:
"FROM 1948 to 1981, THE NATIONAL DEBT REMAINED VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED EVEN
THROUGH THE VIETNAM WAR. FROM 1982 (Reagan's first budget) THROUGH 1989 THE
NATIONAL DEBT MORE THAN DOUBLED from its 1981 VALUE. (All values are
adjusted for inflation.)
Since I wouldn't ask you to take my word for it, check the US treasury
department's info to confirm, and use an inflation calc such as the one
found here:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
To adjust the values. You don't have to check all of them, just spot check
here and there to see if you find any that are off.
Here's the graph:
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f331/qwertyuiopass/debtgraph.jpg
AGAIN, look at the national debt chart please, during the Vietnam
years--barely a ripple--then starting with Reagan's first budget a sudden,
drastic leap up every year since then except for the PC boom during
Clinton's era. How were we able to support ourselves during the Vietnam war
with nearly imperceptible additions to the national debt, but not during the
peacetime years that followed?
1. If Reagan cut taxes and spending, why did he double the national debt?
(Not the deficit, but the entire national DEBT.)
2. If Reagan cut taxes and increased spending, why did he double the
national debt--why didn't he just increase spending by the amount that
federal revenues increased from the tax cuts?
3. If you adjust for inflation for each year, the amount of money borrowed
by Reagan, Bush and Bush lite through from 1982 to 2006 is about seven
trillion dollars. (The amount borrowed by Clinton is about a quarter to a
third of a trillion, but again, I don't credit Clinton for that but instead
I credit the PC boom which Slick Willie was lucky enough to preside during.)
Seven trillion dollars in new spending, going almost exclusively into the US
economy (even spread out over the last 16 years that the neocons held the
white house) can't help but stimulate the economy. Assuming an average of
125 million in the labor force during that time, that's $3500 per worker per
year for 16 years. Now, it's not going directly to the workers, but because
it is spent buying US goods and services, it's creating a hell of a lot of
new jobs and competition for labor.
That's the basic theory behind supply-side economics, that if you stimulate
businesses by buying, the investment trickles down to the workforce and
everyone is better off. However, the neocons want you to think that the
economic stimulation came from cutting taxes, which is blatant nonsense in
light of the facts. In reality, the tax cuts helped very little and were
mainly for buying lots and lots of rich friends for the neocons by appealing
to their avarice.
The skyrocketing debt that Reagan created and that Bushes perpetuated will
have to be paid off eventually. The only practical way to do that is with a
severely deflated dollar. If the dollar deflates to one hundredth of its
value, then the trillions owed currently drop to tens of billions.
Reagan and the neocons are the big spenders--they spend more than they take
in and borrow the difference. They are the true "liberals" in the worst
sense of the word--liberally spending (wasting, mostly) money that has been
borrowed from America's future generations. They have set the US on a
course for economic catastrophe. Within the next five to twenty years, look
for continuing loss of the petrodollar's exclusivity, devastating inflation
and the economic collapse of the US. This much seems obvious. What follows
is more along the lines of speculation.
During this time, Americans will be confused, disoriented and terrified.
The US government will, if staying true to form, blame some scapegoat such
as terrorists, Mexicans or "liberals" for this collapse. In their panicked
state, Americans will look naturally for comfort from the strongest leaders,
much the way Germany did in the years after world war 1. And history
repeats...
I am not going to get into this, if you're addressing it to me. <g> Gross
imports are only about 13% of our GDP, so your point would take some work to
prove, but I see where you're going with it. You'd have to cover the amount
of the tax cuts that went into investment as well. Because the bulk of the
tax cuts go to the wealthy and to corporations, I think you'll have a hard
case to make.
To the best of my knowledge, there are none, because it's never happened.
Maybe in 1964, although I'm not sure even then. That would fit with the more
sophisticated supply-side argument because marginal tax rates then were
sky-high.
And it's complicated by the fact that tax cuts since 1980 generally are
accompanied by phenomenal deficit spending. So sorting out which economic
factors are at work is all but impossible, even if there had been any
increased revenues.
I don't think that George Bush is lying about it. I think he's too ignorant
about economics to have an opinion worthy of the name. McCain is
dissembling. Forbes is blinded by ideology. Giuliani probably knows better.
<snip>
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm
you may find it of interest
Gunner
"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr
I did. Again. Seems it backs up my statements.
Gunner
"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr
Not exactly. You said that reducing the tax rate increases revenue. That's
not what this page shows. It shows that reducing a tax rate *that's too
high* increases revenue. That's a big difference. Otherwise, the more that
the feds cut taxes, the more money they get in return, until the tax rate is
zero--which of course isn't so.
The Laffer curve is a hemispherical curve--starting at the zero point,
arcing to maximum, and curving back to zero. If the tax rate is 100%, no
business can occur and therefore no taxes can be collected. However if the
tax rate is the opposite, 0%, then no taxes will be collected regardless of
what business does.
Laffer pointed out that there is a theoretical "best tax rate" which results
in maximum intake of revenue by the feds (and probably a practical one,
though it may vary from year to year depending on the global business
climate.) When taxes go above or below that point, revenues are reduced.
In Reagan's case, though, his vastly increased borrowing and spending was
more likely the cause of any economic upturn. Assuming an average workforce
of 118 million people during his time in office, Reagan increased the debt
more one point three two trillion dollars in eight years (adjusted to year
1986 values) or over two and a half trillion in today's values,
approximately $2700 per worker per year for the whole eight years.
Dumping $2700 per worker per year into the US businesses for eight years is
going to make a big difference in the job rate, wouldn't you say?
Unemployment down, competition for labor (and thereby wages) up, means more
people paying taxes and the ones who were already paying taxes would be
paying more, even if the rate was cut slightly.
The "Reagan Republicans" would have you believe that they came up with a
magic formula to have your cake and eat it too--however, they are
stimulating the economy by borrowing money and spending it. That's not
fiscal responsibility, it's setting the US economy on the path to
catastrophe. When the catastrophe happens, they'll be blaming the liberals,
al Qaeda, Mexico--everyone but the real culprits!
Actually it's just over 14% according to info from the CIA world factbook,
but I'm splitting hairs--your point is valid--that's a small percentage of
imports.
Ok, but the value of the USA's imports is 15% of the value of all imports
for every country on earth (and that's comparing 2004 world imports with
2006 US imports!):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2087rank.html
However, your point is even better taken when you consider that our exports
value around 60% of our imports:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html
However, I hope you can help me understand those numbers. They make no
sense to me. Go to your average department store and look around. How much
of what you can buy there is made in the US? The few items that even claim
to be made in the US are usually just put to final assembly here from
components made overseas. Same with cars. Even services such as sales,
support, IT and such are being outsourced. How is it that our imports
account for only 14% of our GDP? And what are we exporting besides food and
raw materials?
All good questions, for which I can't give you complete answers. The CIA
World Factbook is good for summaries, but the details lie within the Census
Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis spreadsheets, which can be a little
difficult to navigate. If you really get into it I'll try to help you find
what you're looking for, but I always dread a new project like that because
I have to re-learn it each time.
In broad terms, though, it's not too tough. You see a lot of imports in the
department stores because that's where the imports are concentrated: in
consumer goods. You see much less of it in industrial goods, and oil is a
big wild card that biases the statistics. Don't base your impression on
machine tools. They've *always* been a very small percentage of industrial
goods. Even back in the mid-'70s, the total volume of all US machine tool
builders, added together, would have placed them at number 274 on the
Fortune 500 list. I remember that number because the publishing company I
worked for, which was then only the 4th largest, was number 273.
As for cars, I don't know the percentage offhand but the domestic production
is much higher than you may think. All of the big Japanese builders,
Hyundai, and some of the European builders (including BMW and M-B) have
plants in the US, and the Japanese in particular tend to make their
high-volume cars here. That's counted as US production. My Ford, in
contrast, was made in Mexico. d8-)
Concerning services, despite all of the hoopla only a very small proportion
of our services are outsourced. The ones that are, again, tend to be
consumer-related, so our experience with them gives us the false impression
that the volume is much higher than it is.
Let me know if you want to track down the details. If you want to do it on
your own, a good place to start is www.fedstats.gov. The government
statistics are complex, as I said, but the FedStats website tries to make
the navigation easier. It's partly successful.
That's partly what I mean. If the drivetrain and chassis are made overseas,
shipped here, and welded together on robotic assembly lines, can they count
it as a US production?
Thanks much!! I will look into it and try to sort it out myself.
I haven't kept up with this lately, but back in 1996, when I was reporting
on it, a car needed to have something like 70% US content to be counted as a
US-built car. There was some odd thing in there about NAFTA; I think a car
built partly in Mexico or Canada needed 50% US content to count as a
US-built car. I don't remember how that worked.
You probably could Google this one up.
Take your time. It will be very frustrating at first, but almost anything
you could want is there somewhere. A browser with tabs is a great help for
that work.
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:58:48 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
While he's at it, he should googlize this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=north+american+union
That's a border around the whole of Canada, the USA, and Mexico, with
no division between us. The concept of abrogating our power (adding
Canada's liberals and Mexico's communists to our already too-socialist
regime) scares me shitless. Life, as we know it, would end. <shudder>
--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh
Well, life as *you* know it might end. Life as I know it wouldn't skip a
beat. <g>
Did you ever see that map that divides North America into "The United States
of Canada" and "Jesusland"? It's a hoot.
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:03:26 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
I might be willing to lay you long odds on _that_ one, bubba.
I'll have to find one. A pair of Mor(m)ons showed up at my door
yesterday. I smiled real big and one of them, realizing my recognition
of them, said "Yes, we're from the Church of Latter Day Saints, the
Mormons." I simply told them that I didn't believe in religion and
closed the door as he started to spout Jesus at me.
A guy across the main highway from me just put up a leanto and his
religious squatters on his lower 40 yesterday. I saw them on the way
into town. He's the guy who will put almost a megawatt of xmas lights
up, too. <sigh> Is it late January yet? WallyWorld had some hick
singer squealing out some xmas song 2 weeks ago, in OCTOBER!
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! Can I shift dimensions into a non-religious
world for a few months, please?
--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh
Having lived in Utah for the vast majority of my life, and being married to
a wonderful lady that came from the religion, a term I use in the loosest of
possible meaning (and has long since withdrawn from that miserable excuse of
a religion), I can attest that they are very capable of making a huge
nuisance of themselves.
Prior to Susan's withdrawal (a decision she made without my assistance), we
were rudely interrupted one day by a knock at the door. It was but one of
many intrusions, by "missionaries" that had been sent, specifically, to get
me bent over.
I inquired of them, "did you know who lived here when you knocked on the
door?" "We're you sent, specifically, to attempt to convert
me?------because I'm married to a person that is a known member (of sorts)
of your organization?"
The answer I received, obviously, was "yes", that they were there to convert
me. I informed them that if they didn't call off the dogs-----I would
bloody one of them. They were admonished to never darken my doorstep
again. Believe it or not, it was strangely effective. I have not been
intruded upon since, not by the mormons. Now if I could find a way to
discourage the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Harold
Blood threats should be particularly effective on them, they'd sooner die
than receive a transfusion.
I'm sure glad the scientologists don't go door-to-door.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
