Taxes and the GOP walkout of debt ceiling negotiations.

[Diogenes]

A plan doesn't have to change things all at once. Fine if they don't want to have some pieces come into place for decades. But if you can't propose out loud what plan you have to get us to break-even *eventually* you have no business walking out over a proposal that will at least get us closer.

This notion is based on the fallacious theory that tax increases produce revenue increases. This is only true if you are on the approach side of the Laffer curve. We are WAY PAST the peak of the Laffer curve. Tax increases will REDUCE government income.



http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... and-future

[Diogenes]

I'd say in the long run anything national government can't do with 10% or less of the GDP doesn't need to be done.

Question about this: The last time we were below 10% GDP was in 1940. In that year, we spent 2.13% of GDP on the military. Last year we spent 5.78%. In addition to killing entitilements, to get back below 10% total I think its fair to say we'd need to return to an isolationist foreign policy. Are you on board with that?

Fallacy of false choice. We needn't embrace isolationism in order to reduce government spending. Obviously we managed to control spending in 1940 without resorting to it.

Entitlements are completely misnamed. The people receiving them are absolutely NOT "entitled" to them. They are hand outs to bums and free loaders mostly.

[KitemanSA]

A plan doesn't have to change things all at once. Fine if they don't want to have some pieces come into place for decades. But if you can't propose out loud what plan you have to get us to break-even *eventually* you have no business walking out over a proposal that will at least get us closer.

This notion is based on the fallacious theory that tax increases produce revenue increases. This is only true if you are on the approach side of the Laffer curve. We are WAY PAST the peak of the Laffer curve. Tax increases will REDUCE government income.

The Laffer Curve is in effect the integration of the hormesis (J) curve writ upside-down. It FAILS however to do justice to the REAL issue which is that higher tax rates create NEGATIVE revenue to the country. The Laffer curve never goes negative. High tax rates result in lower tax revenue to the government and NEGATIVE revenue to the country. Simple put, "Like other TOXIC substances, government is subject to the J-Curve". (Johansen's 3rd Law.)

[ScottL]

Entitlements are completely misnamed. The people receiving them are absolutely NOT "entitled" to them. They are hand outs to bums and free loaders mostly.

So...I'm a freeloader and a bum because I took federal grants to pay for college? By your definition because I took hand-outs I am, is this what you're saying? You can't generalize with "mostly" now back your statements up. What hard neighborhood did you grow up in? What under-priviledged life did you live? You sir, are a bum.

[ScottL]

The Laffer Curve is in effect the integration of the hormesis (J) curve writ upside-down. It FAILS however to do justice to the REAL issue which is that higher tax rates create NEGATIVE revenue to the country. The Laffer curve never goes negative. High tax rates result in lower tax revenue to the government and NEGATIVE revenue to the country. Simple put, "Like other TOXIC substances, government is subject to the J-Curve". (Johansen's 3rd Law.)

There is always a "sweet" spot for each socio-economic bracket, however; flat-rate taxes fail in the sense that its exponentially easier to increase revenue when you already have sufficient means to invest vs those of a low socio-economic bracket who do not have the funds to invest nor the proper education to do so. There's a lot of talk about how "I learned xyz back in my day" which simply isn't the case anymore in public education. The curriculum has been stripped down to what many believe are the bare necessicities of education due to lack of funding. Essentially what you're producing is an ever more ignorant or less educated generation. Instead of pumping money into the war machine, we should be pumping into education and national infrastructure. We should be revitalizing our nation, not damning it and anyone who hasn't reached our success level.

[Diogenes]

*Munch's popcorn*

These discussions are always fun to watch. Depending entirely which adjectives you chose to use, mixed with which facts you decide to accept, one can paint either party as demonically evil or as saintly angels.

Both sides will go at it, lambasting the other side, twisting words and playing semantics. And the whole they they've each rationalized their own groups dark deeds and played hypocrite.

BOTH parties are currently bad, both desire to accumulate more power, more wealth and more control. We would fare no better under Republican's then under Democrats. And while the Democrats publicly make themselves look like greedy idiots, the Republicans would just classify it and privately make themselves look like greedy idiots. Both parties spread FUD and the objective of each is to hold onto power.

The objective of the current Republican party isn't to make the USA better nor is to save money or balance the budget. Their objective is to win the 2012 Presidential election, and failing that they desire to weaken the Democratic party. If doing these things requires them to hurt the average American citizen, then so be it, its acceptable loses. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

The objective of the Democratic party isn't to make the USA a better place nor is it to save money or balance the budget. Their objective is to win the 2012 Presidential election, and failing that they desire to weaken the Republican party. If doing these things requires them to hurt the average American citizen, then so be it, its acceptable loses. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

Everything else after this is just talking points based on what their power base and donations come from. The GoP is usually MIC, Healthcare, Financial services and Religious institutes as their power base. They will cater to these groups and vigorously nod their head to whatever makes those groups give more money. The Dems are educational institutes, law firms, social groups, media groups, environmental groups and various "equality" groups. They will cater to these groups and vigorously nod their heads to whatever makes those groups give more money.

About the only difference between these two parties is that the Dems tend to be well intentioned but horribly misguided and thus easily controlled by special interests. The GoP is after power and they don't even pretend to not be and thus their easily manipulated by special interests.

That about sums things up.

You certainly have a warped view of History. While there is SOME merit in what you say, the notion that the parties are equivalent is complete crap. I cannot begin to give you a complete run down of the History of both parties, but I will mention a few things.

The Democrat Party was founded by Andrew Jackson, Most famous as President for Stealing the land from the Five Civilized tribes and giving it to whites to turn into slave plantations. This man FOUNDED the modern DNC. (Democratic National Committee)

The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in Ripon Wisconsin for the Express purpose of outlawing Slavery.

Get the picture? The Democrats were the party of Slavery, i.e. people working while THEY collect the money? Sound Familiar? Abraham Lincoln was the First Republican President. After Slavery, the Democrats went straight to Jim Crow and other forms of racial oppression. Democrat Nathan Bedford Forest Founded the Ku Klux Klan, to oppress blacks, while Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to eradicate them. She referred to Blacks and Asians as "Human Weeds."
President Wilson oversaw the abandonment of the Specie Currency in exchange for "Fiat Currency" thereby making financial game playing by the Feds far easier and common place; A necessary step in creating the financial mess we have now.

Wilson Got us into World War I; a Conflict which was really none of our business. He also created the useless and pathetic "League of Nations" which evolved into the worse than useless and corrupt "United Nations." He followed the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, which were the fiscal equivalent of Keyne's Homosexual lifestyle. (Party hard and die.) He pushed for the 16th amendment. Direct Taxation of Citizens. Virtually All the current financial mess the US Government is involved in stems from the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, Ivy League Idiot too smart by half.

I'm going to stop with him, but rest assured that Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton have ALL wreaked havoc on this nation socially and financially. The nation is much the worse for having had these horrible Presidents.

[Diogenes]

A plan doesn't have to change things all at once. Fine if they don't want to have some pieces come into place for decades. But if you can't propose out loud what plan you have to get us to break-even *eventually* you have no business walking out over a proposal that will at least get us closer.

This notion is based on the fallacious theory that tax increases produce revenue increases. This is only true if you are on the approach side of the Laffer curve. We are WAY PAST the peak of the Laffer curve. Tax increases will REDUCE government income.

The Laffer Curve is in effect the integration of the hormesis (J) curve writ upside-down. It FAILS however to do justice to the REAL issue which is that higher tax rates create NEGATIVE revenue to the country. The Laffer curve never goes negative. High tax rates result in lower tax revenue to the government and NEGATIVE revenue to the country. Simple put, "Like other TOXIC substances, government is subject to the J-Curve". (Johansen's 3rd Law.)

Good point, but to people unfamiliar with the Laffer Curve, it might not be a good idea to overwhelm with deeper theory.

[Diogenes]

Entitlements are completely misnamed. The people receiving them are absolutely NOT "entitled" to them. They are hand outs to bums and free loaders mostly.

So...I'm a freeloader and a bum because I took federal grants to pay for college? By your definition because I took hand-outs I am, is this what you're saying? You can't generalize with "mostly" now back your statements up. What hard neighborhood did you grow up in? What under-priviledged life did you live? You sir, are a bum.

I have known people that like to jump in front of arrows and claim they were fired at. You seem to be one of these. I doubt there is one among us that has not been the recipient of Federal Benevolence, because nowadays it is impossible to avoid it. The Feds are CONSTANTLY shoving money into States and Congressional Districts, and their purpose is clear. To garner political support for the Administrators handing out the money.



If it makes you feel bad, pay it back. The policy of giving away other people's money is the road to destruction.

[Diogenes]

The Laffer Curve is in effect the integration of the hormesis (J) curve writ upside-down. It FAILS however to do justice to the REAL issue which is that higher tax rates create NEGATIVE revenue to the country. The Laffer curve never goes negative. High tax rates result in lower tax revenue to the government and NEGATIVE revenue to the country. Simple put, "Like other TOXIC substances, government is subject to the J-Curve". (Johansen's 3rd Law.)

There is always a "sweet" spot for each socio-economic bracket, however; flat-rate taxes fail in the sense that its exponentially easier to increase revenue when you already have sufficient means to invest vs those of a low socio-economic bracket who do not have the funds to invest nor the proper education to do so. There's a lot of talk about how "I learned xyz back in my day" which simply isn't the case anymore in public education. The curriculum has been stripped down to what many believe are the bare necessicities of education due to lack of funding. Essentially what you're producing is an ever more ignorant or less educated generation. Instead of pumping money into the war machine, we should be pumping into education and national infrastructure. We should be revitalizing our nation, not damning it and anyone who hasn't reached our success level.

The problems in the educational system are not due to lack of money. If anything they are due to an excess of money. School vouchers will solve the MAIN problem with education.

[ScottL]

The problems in the educational system are not due to lack of money. If anything they are due to an excess of money. School vouchers will solve the MAIN problem with education.

My highschool cut programs and laid off teachers as did much of my school district just as I was graduating. Everyone year after my graduation (was a lucky one) my highschool saw the average GPA drop (.4 in 2 years). This drop coincides with the lay-off of teachers and the cutting of after-school programs, etc. So is my school district the exception? I'd be darn certain I wouldn't tell school districts in say Detroit, Michigan or similar that they're over-paid and have excess budgets.

[ScottL]

School vouchers apply when there are no options, however; if made publically, there would generate a competition for sure. Unfortunately, not all good things come from competition such as standardized tests which studies have shown put children of different races other than white often at a disadvantage. If you adjust as per listed below for race, gender, and socio-economic status then sure things look all peaches and cream. Unfortunately for this idea, we do not live in a world where everyones life and life experiences are the same.

While it has been argued that private schools provide higher test scores, in 2006, the United States Department of Education released a report concluding that average test scores for reading and mathematics, when adjusted for student and school characteristics, tend to be very similar among public schools and private schools. If results were left unadjusted for factors such as race, gender, and free or reduced price lunch program eligibility, private schools performed significantly better than public schools

Dept. of Education
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006461

[choff]

I have a suggestion on how to resolve the philosophical divide between Democrats and Republicans over the budget. Eventually, the IMF, and the large foreign stakeholders of US debt, will come calling to tell the congress they are in default. They will present a new budget in the manner of, "you have 24 hours to agree to these terms or all credit is cut off."

So, maybe have a congressional fact finding mission go to these people and ask them what the financial ultimatum will look like, then use it as a reference frame for doing it to themselves before having it imposed.

[hanelyp]

The adults in congress (many republicans) are trying to bring the spending binge under control before the creditors cut us off. Even if foreign creditors start asking usurious rates before they lend to the US government as a risky borrower, there's still the self destructive Wiemar Republic / Zimbabwe plan.

[choff]

A good plan would be to find out from the lenders and IMF exactly what budget they would impose on the US government in the way of taxes and spending cuts in order to keep the credit line operating. Being mainly foreigners and business people, they would be totally indifferent to the sensibilities of any U.S. political party or movement.

The Democrats, Republicans, Progressives, Liberals, Libertarians and Tea party supporters would probably discover making deals with each other isn't so bad at all compared to what the IMF and Chinese Banks would do.

They could decide huge cost savings could be realized by mothballing 7 Nimitz class carriers. They could take one look at health care eating up 17% going on 19% of GNP and arbitrarely replace it with the French or Canadian model. They could tax the rich even more than the Democrats want, go after the offshore tax havens.

You lose sovereignty when you go in hock, they could even dictate state budgets. I hope this helps put it all in focus.

[KitemanSA]

Entitlements are completely misnamed. The people receiving them are absolutely NOT "entitled" to them. They are hand outs to bums and free loaders mostly.

So...I'm a freeloader and a bum because I took federal grants to pay for college? By your definition because I took hand-outs I am, is this what you're saying? You can't generalize with "mostly" now back your statements up. What hard neighborhood did you grow up in? What under-priviledged life did you live? You sir, are a bum.

Perhaps you are, and more damning is that you seem to have wasted that grant. If you think the "entitilements" and "college grants" fall in the same category then it was indeed wasted.

A college grant is an attempted investment (frequently a foolish one, but at least an attempt at investment) in the generation of increased taxes down the road via improving the earning potential of the recipient. Entitlements are payments for nothing due to some class priviledge cuz they are "entitled" to it.