Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh, I wasn't even gonna touch the national debt issue, but since you brought it up, I totally agree. Economists (at least those who like Keynes) don't seem to, though.

I personally hate that a large percentage of my tax dollars go toward debt service (what is it 15-20%?). I want that paid down. Trouble is, no one will get elected by saying "right, for decades now we've spend beyond our means, and now must pay it back."

-Arrian

Arrian,

I take it that you don't own bonds. Otherwise you would favor debt more.

It's true that debt service is a transfer of wealth. That's why rich people should pay even more taxes. Debt service is a benefit that only they get, and they should pay the tax for it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK
A) Those aren't planned deficits. They are mostly the result of economy downturn. There is a diference. These kinds of deficits are an effect, not a cause.

Yeah right, Bush instituted all his tax cuts because he sincerely believed that the economy was in tip top shape. It had absolutely nothing to do with fiscal policy! Now I'm not saying that I agree with his approach, but it certainly didn't happen by accident.

B) The failure of the leader is the failure of the system. A Democrat whould be just as inept. Look at FDR. When the Depression hit he tried to ballance the budget.

So a communist leader is by nature more enlightened and infallible? Hell the entire Soviet system has shown that's certainly not the case. They fell hopelessly behind when Reagan brought the whole weight of the US economy to bear on the Cold War. They collapsed like a house of cards!

[Arrian]

DuncanK,

I've been out of college since 1998. I did drop Econ (though I took about 4 courses, and I had a history course that had a heavy dose of economics in it) and got a History degree.

It's true that debt service is a transfer of wealth. That's why rich people should pay even more taxes. Debt service is a benefit that only they get, and they should pay the tax for it.

Excuse me? When I said debt service, I meant that the US gov't pays a huge amount of money each year just to pay interest on the debt. WTF does that have to do with rich people, and how does it justify higher taxes on them? If you mean that rich people own the banks that lent money to the government... how is it their fault that the government has no fiscal responsibility? I just don't follow your argument.

I do not own bonds, btw. Well, actually, that's not entirely true. My IRA account has some money in funds that include bonds.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

The failure of the leader is the failure of the system

Stalin, Mao, etc. Communism's track record is even less impressive than Mr. Bush.

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh, I wasn't even gonna touch the national debt issue, but since you brought it up, I totally agree. Economists (at least those who like Keynes) don't seem to, though.

I personally hate that a large percentage of my tax dollars go toward debt service (what is it 15-20%?). I want that paid down. Trouble is, no one will get elected by saying "right, for decades now we've spend beyond our means, and now must pay it back."

-Arrian

Maybe you should move to Canada then, that's exactly the approach we've taken for the last 10 years. We've been running a surplus now for several years, about half of which is going towards overall debt reduction.

[Arrian]

Willem,

Canada's ok and all, and my Sister lives near Toronto, but the US of A is my country, even if our government is usually run by incompetant fools. I'm hoping that maybe, just maybe, if a country such as Canada shows that fiscal sanity works, we might at least consider adopting a similar policy. Not holding my breath, mind you...

-Arrian

[Willem]

Arrian,

I just noticed this:

"The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omlette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omlettehood."

I'd say that sums up Duncan's position quite well don't you think?

[Arrian]

I've heard that quote attributed to Mao.

I'm not sure if that's true, but it seems in character for a commie, yes.

-Arrian

[DuncanK]

i don't think that was Mao, but it is good.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian
DuncanK,

I've been out of college since 1998. I did drop Econ (though I took about 4 courses, and I had a history course that had a heavy dose of economics in it) and got a History degree.



Excuse me? When I said debt service, I meant that the US gov't pays a huge amount of money each year just to pay interest on the debt. WTF does that have to do with rich people, and how does it justify higher taxes on them? If you mean that rich people own the banks that lent money to the government... how is it their fault that the government has no fiscal responsibility? I just don't follow your argument.

I do not own bonds, btw. Well, actually, that's not entirely true. My IRA account has some money in funds that include bonds.

-Arrian

You are very conservative. Step back from your bias for a second and just think of the impact on the economy. You can't just tax the hell out of the poor and give it to the rich. Allthough that is immoral, if you look at it from an economics thing it will kill the economy.

[Arrian]

Excuse me? When did I EVER advocate "taxing the hell out of the poor?"

I do NOT like your putting words in my mouth, Duncan.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

First off, "taxing the hell out of the poor" is clearly a bad idea because you won't get much money out of them. It's also wrong.

I wasn't under the impression we were discussing the US tax code... and even if we were, I didn't advocate raising the lower tax brackets and granting big percentage cuts for the upper brackets! I'm ok with the progressive tax system. I'm not ok with the demonization of the rich, but that's another issue.

I was talking about fiscal responsibility in government. Not how the government gets its money - how it spends it! I want the national debt reduced (eventually wiped out) and I want surpluses during times of good economic growth so we can support deficit spending in recession. How does that have anything to do with "taxing the hell out of the poor" and how does it make me "very conservative?"

-Arrian

[Capt Dizle]

Like a broken record I say again, taxes are not the issue. Wages are. We need to find a way to force wages up.

Capitalism is the best economic system because it harnesses human vice...greed. If you forced the rich (corporations and their stockholders) to pay higher wages you would immediately get two great economic boosts. 1) higher consumer spending due to increase wages, and 2) more innovation from corporations as they struggle to restore the profits lost to higher wages.

Win-win scenerio.

[Velociryx]

Again, Duncan, the facts do not support what you are saying. The rich in this country pay far, FAR more taxes than the poor....and that only makes sense, does it not? After all, if the poor are....well, poor, then they don't have much money to take.

Contrast that to the wealthy, who have money in abundance, is it not logical then, to go where the money is?

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DuncanK


You are very conservative. Step back from your bias for a second and just think of the impact on the economy. You can't just tax the hell out of the poor and give it to the rich. Allthough that is immoral, if you look at it from an economics thing it will kill the economy.

Why oh why does everyone do this?

Tax this group and give to that group rhetoric.

Taxes are monies taken period by the governement. Libertarians equate it to theft if you will. But under no circumstances is lowering of tax rate a gift. It only means the government thieves a little less.

There is no giving involved by the government. Even a tax refund is simply a payment of your monies back to you if only after they have had use of it for 6 - 9 monthes.

Finally, yes the so called wealthy of the US do indeed pay the lion share of taxes and also do the lion share of job creation.

The Dem theory that monies in the hands of the poor will find its way into circulation and cause demand for goods and services is IMO not valid as the demand will be mostly for lowest denominator goods and services. These are not likely IMO to create jobs in a complex supply chain.