Obama on Taxes

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Obama on Taxes

Post by _Droopy »

You need to figure out how to tell the difference between campaign rhetoric and actual beliefs.


No, you need to start thinking for yourself for a change and start educating yourself a bit.

The big, fat 800 pound gorilla in the room is that the financial meltdown - the collapse of the sub-prime housing markets, are a one hundred and fifty percent liberal Democratic policy failure. It was seen coming years ago from miles and miles away. All the relevant actors were warned and all were made aware, but the vote buying scheme continued (as did the financial corruption and political featherbedding) regardless of the economic train wreck that intellectually serious analysts saw coming.

This is yet another classic example (the Austrians just love this kind of thing) of the disastrous failure of government intervention in the private sector where it has no business whatever sticking is greasy, meddling, porcine fingers.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Obama on Taxes

Post by _Droopy »

Look at the whole picture. Do you really think going from a surplus to the largest deficits in American history is a success?


You forgot to mention that the Clinton era surplus of the late 90s was purely a paper surplus, and never actually existed in reality. Much of it was a projection into the future, and hence, a theoretical surplus that did not foresee the dot.com collapse or 9/11 (and hence, a figment of the accounting methodology used to create the forecast). Also not foreseen were the intemperate levels of government spending supported by both the Bush administration and Congress after the turn of the century (which is where the deficits actually come from). Earth to Analytics: tax cuts do not create deficits except in the very short term (and so what anyway?) Tax cuts stimulate the economy by stimulating productive economic activity and hence increasing the size of the tax base. In the longer term, tax cuts create greater federal revenues (which is what we actually don't want to happen. This is actually a kind of necessary evil side effect).
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Obama on Taxes

Post by _Droopy »

On behalf of tax payers everywhere, I thank president Bush for these tax cuts. And I especially extend my warmest thanks to our children and grandchildren who will be paying off the debt this created for their entire tax-paying lives.



Tax cuts do not increase government debt. Deficit spending increases government debt, including when government borrows from the Fed to make up revenues lost when taxes are initially reduced. It also increases when government spends beyond its means regardless of whether taxes are cut or raised. It is never enough, and never will be. The lust of the political class for taxpayer funds had no rational limit, as the history of the last century makes clear.

The answer then, is to cut, not only taxes, but government spending, which is the cause of an increasing national debt.

You may as well not worry too much about the national debt in any case, as in ten years Social Security will no longer be able to take on new beneficiaries, and ten years after that, in about 2027 or so, both Social Security and Medicare will begin taking our economy into its death throes. Obama's answer to the tens of trillions of the unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare is...tax hikes. The kinds of hikes we're talking about are economy destroying tax hikes. But no matter, the Democrats want to keep this a government program, and will resist privatization no matter how economically insane this option this may be.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Obama on Taxes

Post by _Droopy »

I think I understand what you are saying. My biggest beef with both parties on the issue of tax cuts is the fact that the government can't afford tax cuts--the Bush tax cuts--whether to the rich or poor--are being financed on the backs of our children.



Un-freaking believable.

Bush's tax cuts - no one's tax cuts, are being "financed" on anyone's back. Tax cuts create jobs, opportunity, wealth, and increase government revenue (which is then immediately spent on more vote buying schemes like the Community Reinvestment Act), and encourage saving, investment, and risk.

The government can't afford...? These are the words of a docile, domesticated serf who has drunk the statist Kool-aid to the very dregs. The very idea that our vast, bloated government "can't afford" such and such is just so rich. No analytics, we, the people, can no longer afford the colossal, invasive, arrogant, presumptuous leviathan state we have allowed to grow and fester over the last century. Its time to drastically cut taxes and unnecessary government spending once and for all. Both government and the people will have far more disposable income in the process, and the people will have more liberty, which is really the primary reason to keep government limited in power and scope.

A free society will not remain free for very long as attitudes such as these become ever more commonplace.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Obama on Taxes

Post by _Droopy »

1-I think the U.S. needs a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I’m willing for some Keynesian interventions so that there are deficits in recessions and surpluses in recoveries, but at the end of the cycle, we need a balanced budget.


A balanced budget is not a panacea, nor, as the boom years of the 80s and the advancing economy of the next decade show, necessary to economic growth and prosperity. I don't have time to go into it right now, but its a bit more complex that that. And, in case you didn't know it, Keynesian economics has been long discredited as a practical economic theory. If you want to know what happens the morning after Keynesian demand side deficit spending (which I thought you were against) and monetary manipulation, I give you the seventies (especially the late seventies).


2- I believe in a progressive tax structure. This is for a couple of reasons. First, as Tarski explained in another thread, there is a diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Thus, maximizing the utility of society as a whole entails having those who have much more than they need pay a little bit larger share. Second, quoting Obama, those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success..


The statements in boldface give the whole game away at the outset.

1. Who, pray tell me, decides, and upon what criteria, what any individual needs?

2, The idea that the state controlling more of the wealth generated in the private sector somehow maximizes the utility of society (whatever that actually means) is a baseless assertion that is both socially and historically suspect on its face. There is every reason to believe that the more the state attempts to "maximize the utility of society", the worse the economic, social, and political pathologies within society and the economy become, and the more destructive unforeseen side effects proliferate. This claim also implies that the maximization of social utility is, for some unknown reason, best brought about by the state and not by the individuals who comprise the society itself seeking what is best for themselves, their families, and their communities.

The bottom line here is that the progressive income tax is an idea of Marx and Engles and can be found in the Communist Manifesto, not in the Constitution. The reason is simple: progressivity is purely a punitive measure designed to return the workers alienated labor to him by force. It has nothing to do with economic rationality nor with morality as normatively understood by morally mature human beings. A simple, fair, and low flat tax would have the federal government rolling in dough all the same, but it would not set the classes off from each other in an ideological adversarial conflict that could be manipulated by the political class for their own advantage, and therein, as Analytics and Tarski's comments demonstrate, lies the real meaning and value to them of the progressive tax system.

There is no economic or moral justification for anything other than a fair flat tax that taxes everyone at the same rate based upon ability to pay. Progressivity is grounded in class envy, and hence, as one's income goes up, one's marginal rates of taxation go up. Why? Why, because of all that income you don't really need, of course.

My how the masks come off in an election year.

3- I believe talking about tax breaks per se is the wrong conversation. What the conversation should be about is coming up with and refining a tax structure that allows the government to balance its budget in a way that is as fair as possible.


Why not cut taxes and cut government spending, thus balancing the budget and unleashing the productive capacity of the American people, thus creating new wealth in the private economy and raising government revenues within the context of a smaller, less active and intrusive federal government. Let's, in other words, balance the budget on the back of the federal government, not on the people, while letting the people create, spend, and invest more of their own money.

Perish the thought...
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Obama on Taxes

Post by _Gadianton »

I don't know guys, a 500 billion plus war, a 700 billion bailout; whether or not Obama tries some public spending here along the lines of "job creation" or whatever, doesn't sound like much of an issue.

Anyone who supports the bailout, by the way, (including inummerable republicans) is an enemy to the doctrine of market efficiency that us Chicago folks believe in, and is implicitely arguing for socialism in a far more real and scary sense than those who seek to redistribute a little after the market does its thing. It's one thing to say that the free market needs some guidance after the fact because it isn't quite fair. It's quite another to claim that there are a such thing as "price bubbles" and "false rallies" and so on, and especially that the government has to spend hundreds of billions to correct what us Chicago folks know to be an "adjustment". This is blatent socialism, and seriously suggests capitalism is a failure.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Re: Obama on Taxes

Post by _Tarski »

Gadianton wrote:I don't know guys, a 500 billion plus war, a 700 billion bailout; whether or not Obama tries some public spending here along the lines of "job creation" or whatever, doesn't sound like much of an issue.

Anyone who supports the bailout, by the way, (including inummerable republicans) is an enemy to the doctrine of market efficiency that us Chicago folks believe in, and is implicitely arguing for socialism in a far more real and scary sense than those who seek to redistribute a little after the market does its thing. It's one thing to say that the free market needs some guidance after the fact because it isn't quite fair. It's quite another to claim that there are a such thing as "price bubbles" and "false rallies" and so on, and especially that the government has to spend hundreds of billions to correct what us Chicago folks know to be an "adjustment". This is blatent socialism, and seriously suggests capitalism is a failure.


Well put.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Re: Obama on Taxes

Post by _asbestosman »

The bailout has me uncomfortable. Normally I'd be all for letting risk takers suffer the consequences of their risk. The problem I have is that many who did not mean to take such risk have suffered the consequences (eroded retirement funds, lost jobs, etc). Me? Sure my home and stock went down, but I'm young so I'm not worried.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Obama on Taxes

Post by _Droopy »

Anyone who supports the bailout, by the way, (including innumerable republicans) is an enemy to the doctrine of market efficiency that us Chicago folks believe in, and is implicitly arguing for socialism in a far more real and scary sense than those who seek to redistribute a little after the market does its thing.


I agree that too many Republicans within institutional politics are supporting the bailout. Few conservatives are supporting it, however.

I do disagree that the bailout is more dangerous (socializing the consequences and risks of bad economic decisions) than the kind of legal plunder Obama and the Democratic party are partial too. The bailout is economically fallacious and comes out of the taxpayer's pocket, its true, but Obama is articulating, following the long term positions and attitudes of his party, an overt class warfare mentality grounded in the naked envy of those who have chosen a different path in life, developed and refined different skills, and been rewarded by the market for it.

It's one thing to say that the free market needs some guidance after the fact because it isn't quite fair. It's quite another to claim that there are a such thing as "price bubbles" and "false rallies" and so on, and especially that the government has to spend hundreds of billions to correct what us Chicago folks know to be an "adjustment". This is blatent socialism, and seriously suggests capitalism is a failure.


Both are socialistic, and both are "blatant" socialism. However, the kind of economic interventionism engaged in by big government Republicans and leftist Democrats is still qualitatively different than the evil greedy rich vs. exploited struggling proletariat mentality of redistribution of wealth in the name of egalitarian "fairness" supported by Obama, an ideological value judgment upon the market (all consumers) that seeks to preempt and second guess the personal economic decisions and preferences of hundreds of millions of human beings.

The idea that the market isn't "fair" is, of course, preposterous. A true free market is simply...free, and freedom will always produce disparate outcomes.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Obama on Taxes

Post by _Gadianton »

asbestosman wrote:The bailout has me uncomfortable. Normally I'd be all for letting risk takers suffer the consequences of their risk. The problem I have is that many who did not mean to take such risk have suffered the consequences (eroded retirement funds, lost jobs, etc). Me? Sure my home and stock went down, but I'm young so I'm not worried.


You kind of imply, maybe without knowing it, the depth of this problem. Generally speaking, it would seem that the risks of lending practices weren't understood very well, and if we have to admit that, then it means not all available information had been used efficiently in determining the price of securities e.g., they were "overpriced". And the extent of this inefficiency, if it is one, would then cast great doubts on the viability of capital markets to set prices correctly. It inherently argues for the need for a degree of socialism.

I believed the market could have been efficient during the boom of the late 90's. But this...I'm really struggling to buy it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008 ... -useconomy

This guy is my new hero. As a disciple of free market economics, though, I'm supposed to say that his description here is not true. That after the fact, it may feel like he predicted the failure, but that all fund managers feel like they predict their own success when really, their (excess) returns reflected risk, not better used information.

Well, I'm more tempted here to buy into his story than I've ever been tempted to buy into a fund manager's story. I feel like he might be right, and if he is, it's pretty scary.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Post Reply