Political discussion thread

NaturalScience wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: You know what I love?  The notion that cutting taxes raises revenue.  Simple thought experiment.  Cut taxes to zero.  And how much revenue exactly would that bring in? You know what I love?  The notion that raising taxes increases revenue.  Simple thought experiment.  Raise taxes to 100%.  And how much revenue exactly would that bring in? Agreeing that the revenue goes to zero at the endpoints is sort of self-evident, is it not?

I do believe that the currently held "nostrum" is that there is a limit as to how much extra revenue is created as you progressively raise taxes. The notion being that at a certain point you discourage spending (consumption, saving,investing, etc...) .
The point that S was trying to make is that too many pols seem to oversimplify and say that taxes cuts automatically increase revenues. Even Dubya's dad, who was smart enough to be allowed to run the CIA, thought that it was voodoo economics.
Now mind you, I feel that cutting taxes is a tool used by right wing corporatist GOPers to slash Gov't programs that they don't like after said taxes cuts push the budget into deficit. unfortuantely, as Dubya surely privately admits, sometimes you just can't cut enough and fast enough to generate that promised surplus.

Now as far as good old real world actually is happening out there in the real world facts, if you check the list of the top countries re : standard of living and economic success you would be surprised to see such "socialistic" countries as the Scandinavians doing quite well with taxation levels much higher than yours. BUT, there are differences. There are trade-offs. And what works in one nation, may not work or be acceptable in another. Also, some countries will find that higher taxes only lead to more wasteful (special interests like business the rich, the local pork barrel, and others) spending, or that lower taxes bring added social (higher crime, lower academic results) costs. Just simply saying one level or another is better is not quite that easy.
Not to bring up religion, but if your government proposes to raise your taxes, and in return funds a social program that will be set up with specific and measurable goals, would you rather debate the effect of the assumed & expected good or just the cost/benefit analysis ? As in - being your' brother's keeper ? We are all in this together right ?

IVNORD wrote: I watched them back in the late 80's, they were on NBC then I think. But it never occured to me John McLaughlin had anything in common with them

Sorry, it was on PMS urm, PBS.


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 24 2008 at 18:54

IVNORD wrote: NaturalScience wrote: IVNORD wrote: NaturalScience wrote: IVNORD wrote: Probably it's the only way out. It's not.  Absolutely unsustainable.  Sometime during my lifetime the sh*t will hit the fan, I predict. You think it's unsustainable? Similar events took place in the 70's. The Fed seemed to be a bit more responsible at the time, they fought inflation tooth and nail. Inflation won, we devalued the dollar, adjusted to the new prices, and went on. The situation is quite different today. They are afraid of a recession as it may easily turn into something more ominous. So to soothe the pain they try to keep the economy afloat by pumping liquidity into the system to the point of super-saturation when people pay $140 for a barrel of oil and think it's cheap. If we avoid severe recession, the economy may turn around in its natural cycle. Then we devalue the dollar and get used to $5-dollar gasoline. In the process the middle class will be devastated by the falling purchasing power of their savings (especially the babyboomers) but who cares? This is a positive scenario. The negative one is simple - we have Weimar-republic-type hyper-inflation and super-depression. But the jury is still out.   As for your prediction, you have to define the sh*t and the fan. Otherwise it's too wide of a definition. I don't how my initial post about the runaway growth of entitlement programs turned into a discussion on inflation and our current energy problems, but in any case you seem to be optimistic that all will turn out well.  Trust me that I wish dearly that I could share your optimism. If you call my Weimar Republic scenario and prediction of the almost certain demise of the middle class optimistic, I am afraid to look at things that trigger pessimism in you. My point is life won't stop no matter how bad things are. The adjustments could be severe and may affect you and me in a profound way, but a new generation will go thru a new cycle.

I think we agree on a lot, but we might be talking past each other or something.  Oh well.

debrewguy wrote: DB - Yes, we would. But assuming the worst, based on realities that are no longer the norm should not stop one from seriously thinking about other options. Funny how there is no great rebellion against continously escalating Military costs that never seem to need justification (security yes, but how is it measured, by whom). Earmarks, pork barrel projects, and corporate subsidies with ill-defined , if any, benefits. Need a bridge to nowhere in your district in Alaska. No Problem ! We need your vote on this Homeland Security project in Iowa to protect against a terrorist attack ! Your local military base is set to close due to the fact that it is not needed, we'll vote against it, if you support our bill to subsidize ethanol programs where the fuel made uses up more energy than it produces.

You said it. No accountability. Would it be logical to assume that another government program may be as bad as most of the previous ones?

NaturalScience wrote: IVNORD wrote: NaturalScience wrote: IVNORD wrote: NaturalScience wrote: IVNORD wrote: Probably it's the only way out. It's not.  Absolutely unsustainable.  Sometime during my lifetime the sh*t will hit the fan, I predict. You think it's unsustainable? Similar events took place in the 70's. The Fed seemed to be a bit more responsible at the time, they fought inflation tooth and nail. Inflation won, we devalued the dollar, adjusted to the new prices, and went on. The situation is quite different today. They are afraid of a recession as it may easily turn into something more ominous. So to soothe the pain they try to keep the economy afloat by pumping liquidity into the system to the point of super-saturation when people pay $140 for a barrel of oil and think it's cheap. If we avoid severe recession, the economy may turn around in its natural cycle. Then we devalue the dollar and get used to $5-dollar gasoline. In the process the middle class will be devastated by the falling purchasing power of their savings (especially the babyboomers) but who cares? This is a positive scenario. The negative one is simple - we have Weimar-republic-type hyper-inflation and super-depression. But the jury is still out.   As for your prediction, you have to define the sh*t and the fan. Otherwise it's too wide of a definition. I don't how my initial post about the runaway growth of entitlement programs turned into a discussion on inflation and our current energy problems, but in any case you seem to be optimistic that all will turn out well.  Trust me that I wish dearly that I could share your optimism. If you call my Weimar Republic scenario and prediction of the almost certain demise of the middle class optimistic, I am afraid to look at things that trigger pessimism in you. My point is life won't stop no matter how bad things are. The adjustments could be severe and may affect you and me in a profound way, but a new generation will go thru a new cycle. I think we agree on a lot, but we might be talking past each other or something.  Oh well.

It's possible. Nuances are often lost in written text

Relayer09 wrote: IVNORD wrote: Relayer09 wrote:   Is it sarcasm or irony? Remember Bush inherited NAFTA from Clinton. The attacks of 9/11 took place less than eight months after Bush was sworn in. Those two things would have taken a toll on any President no matter who was sitting in office. Obama said while campaigning in Ohio that he wanted to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA calling it "devastating" and "a big mistake". This past week he has toned down that stance after talking to Prime Minister Harper but he still believes in "opening up a dialogue" with Mexico and Canada "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people". It's apparent even to Senator Obama that NAFTA has hurt America badly. This definetly goes into the PRO column of reasons I would vote for Obama but so far McCain's PRO column for me is stronger still. The merits and drawbacks of NAFTA are debatable. Blaming the loss of manufacturing jobs on NAFTA alone is naive. Migration of obsolete labor intensive industries to cheaper labor markets is as old a process as capitalism itself. And in modern times older technologies have been going to third world countries for about 100 years. Look at steel and textile industries, engineering and data processing. Obama's anti-NAFTA stand is protectionist in nature. He singled out the most visible trade agreement as the only culprit which may be very popular in Ohio. It's politically smart, but economically silly. NAFTA promised to create jobs and raise the average wage for U.S. workers. It had exactly the opposite effect. NAFTA displaced over 1,000,000 jobs out of the manufacturing industry and forced those displaced workers into lower paying jobs.   There were several studies conducted between 2004-2006 that show the adverse effects of NAFTA not just  for U.S. workers but for workers in Mexico and Canada as well. I found a very interesting article done by the Economic Policy Institute ( a non-partisan think tank) that you may find interesting.   http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp173

Actually I came here for the link...

IVNORD wrote: debrewguy wrote: DB - Yes, we would. But assuming the worst, based on realities that are no longer the norm should not stop one from seriously thinking about other options. Funny how there is no great rebellion against continously escalating Military costs that never seem to need justification (security yes, but how is it measured, by whom). Earmarks, pork barrel projects, and corporate subsidies with ill-defined , if any, benefits. Need a bridge to nowhere in your district in Alaska. No Problem ! We need your vote on this Homeland Security project in Iowa to protect against a terrorist attack ! Your local military base is set to close due to the fact that it is not needed, we'll vote against it, if you support our bill to subsidize ethanol programs where the fuel made uses up more energy than it produces. You said it. No accountability. Would it be logical to assume that another government program may be as bad as most of the previous ones?

Possible, but for logic, one would ask if ALL government programs are massively overfunded and hugely unsuccessful. As I stated, is it possible for voters to accept a new program if its' goals are specifically stated, with measurable goals to be automatically reviews within,say, a five year period of its' inception.
I know most people love to talk about accountability. But it seems like it's usually those who represent other districts that are said to be the problem. I.E. " my congressman/senator/president is fine, why shouldn't he get a ninth term ?" Whether he is in the majority or minority, he should have a voice. It works differently in Canada where party lines are rarely crossed, but in the U.S., each rep has some pull.

If you haven't heard of Greg Palast check him out here:
http://www.gregpalast.com/



http://www.thismodernworld.com/