Reality-Based Politics

[bush_cheney2004]

....The second scenario is a possibility. As BC posted above, "cash is king".

[dre]

And I suppose that for you gold is not a "paper token".

Of course not, theres a huge difference. You can abitrarily control the value of paper/electonic tokens because you can create an infinite ammount of them. If you could print gold on a press out of paper than it would be worth next to nothing as well.

The point being the US debt is actually lower than it was 15 years ago not higher. It owes more in paper tokens but less in real purchasing power. It doesnt matter if you owe a billion trillion bits of paper if those bits of paper combined cant buy you breakfast a Arbys.

And credit is king these days not cash.

[blueblood]

You use Regan as an example, yet say having a similar tax rate to him would be socialist. You look at the numbers. Obama is proposing a very modest increase in the highest income tax rate in order to make up for their fiscal shortfall. His proposal is quite reasonable.

The GOP completely ignored it. Well, good for them. It's time they made a counter proposal. But nope. Nothing. Either the fiscal cliff is just not that important to the GOP or they're reckless and irresponsible. I'm not sure what, but the ball is in their court and they're refusing to play. It doesn't look very good on them at all.

No, I'm saying the rhetoric against rich people and that they should have their taxes raised when no one else gets tax increases is akin to Chavez et al. Not only that there isn't much in the way for spending cuts.

I'd say let the fiscal cliff happen. Everyone pays like they should and important spending cuts take place.

That rhetoric of tax the rich is straight up garbage. Rich people provide jobs, capital for investment, spend ridiculous amounts of money, and pay taxes. That rhetoric is a slap in the face of all the contributions of those people who do all those things saying that they should do more while close to half the country doesn't contribute at all, yet has the nerve to ask for more. And they wonder why all sorts of money is leaving the country for overseas.

That left wing entitlement attitude is cause for a lot of problems. First they were entitled to all live in houses that they had no business buying, now they are entitled to rich people's money. That's sickening. Cripes a big reason the USA has gotten to the size, power, and wealth is people all over the world throughout the course of history fleeing that type of nonsense.

You posted a chart of USA growth during Eisenhower and his 90% tax on the rich. Growth during the mid to late 1800's was greater than that and taxes/spending were minimal. Its frustrating to see people gravitate towards a philosophy which has been proven time and again to be a failure and at the same time criticizing a philosophy that has been successful and is being emulated by rising powers throughout the world.

What's stopping at a 5 point tax increase? What's to stop the democrats from implementing more spending and going after the rich to foot the bill? It's a slippery slope.

[bush_cheney2004]

And don't forget that the U.S. has been bankrupt since Nixon Shock in the 70's !!!

[dre]

Cripes a big reason the USA has gotten to the size, power, and wealth is people all over the world throughout the course of history fleeing that type of nonsense.

This could not be further from the truth, in fact its the exact opposite. First of all what people were fleeing was aristocracies, and monarchies where a small pecentage of the population controlled the vast majority of the wealth. The US was different because it DIDNT concentrate wealth. Between WW2 and 1975 the average top bracket tax rate was about 60%... a time of rapid economic growth. And using taxation to break up concentrations of wealth isnt a new thing either in the Unities States. The robber barons and railroad tycoons were also broken up by taxation, in particular the introduction of income and estate taxation under wilson... and prosperity and economic growth followed.

Its just a matter of time until it happens again, just like its happened every other time in history when a tiny percentage of people has controlled all the wealth and power, and just like it will every time this ever happens in the future.

[carepov]

No, I'm saying the rhetoric against rich people and that they should have their taxes raised when no one else gets tax increases is akin to Chavez et al. Not only that there isn't much in the way for spending cuts.

I'd say let the fiscal cliff happen. Everyone pays like they should and important spending cuts take place.

That rhetoric of tax the rich is straight up garbage. Rich people provide jobs, capital for investment, spend ridiculous amounts of money, and pay taxes. That rhetoric is a slap in the face of all the contributions of those people who do all those things saying that they should do more while close to half the country doesn't contribute at all, yet has the nerve to ask for more. And they wonder why all sorts of money is leaving the country for overseas.

That left wing entitlement attitude is cause for a lot of problems. First they were entitled to all live in houses that they had no business buying, now they are entitled to rich people's money. That's sickening. Cripes a big reason the USA has gotten to the size, power, and wealth is people all over the world throughout the course of history fleeing that type of nonsense.

You posted a chart of USA growth during Eisenhower and his 90% tax on the rich. Growth during the mid to late 1800's was greater than that and taxes/spending were minimal. Its frustrating to see people gravitate towards a philosophy which has been proven time and again to be a failure and at the same time criticizing a philosophy that has been successful and is being emulated by rising powers throughout the world.

What's stopping at a 5 point tax increase? What's to stop the democrats from implementing more spending and going after the rich to foot the bill? It's a slippery slope.

Please let me ask you this, what do you think the average and marginal tax rates should be for the following families (2 adults + 2 children)?:

Single income from employment: $30,000

Dual income from employment: $80,000

Single income from employment: $1,000,000

Single income from capital gains: $1,000,000

[bleeding heart]

Its that dangerous lynch mob mentality that has caused problems for those countries with those people. Ask the people who sail to Florida from Cuba on a raft made out of a door, or the many wealthy emigrants of venezuela. More oil than Alberta and embroiled in poverty, outstanding.

No, that's not accurate, particularly in the case with Venezuela.

The country has always been an economic basket case, with terrible poverty. It wasn't one whit better in this regard under the preceding right-wing, anti-socialist regimes allied to the West/North.

According to your implication here, it certainly should have been.

[August1991]

But Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans Administration programs do purchase goods and services, and are growing at an unsustainable rate for the feds and states.

They do. As we know well in Canada.

Government spending has not remained at 20% of GDP.

It has. More or less.

In the US, your federal government hires engineers to build B-2 bombers.

In Canada, our federal government hires teachers to make children bilingual.

These are not transfers. When the government hires someone, it uses a society resource. When a government makes a transfer, it merely takes money from one pocket/wallet and transfers it to another.

----

BC, the much broader question is transfers: Government bureaucracy may be bigger, its decisions may be good/bad, but IMV government bureaucrats, under the guise of the State, now transfer far more.

Edited December 7, 2012 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

It has. More or less.

No...it is less or more...much more recently. You are not including state and local government in your assumption. GDP does not change in the denominator.

In the US, your federal government hires engineers to build B-2 bombers.

Not really....defense contractors hire the engineers.

In Canada, our federal government hires teachers to make children bilingual.

...and it buys CC-177's, GPS guided bombs, torpedoes, and rotary winged aircraft from U.S. defense contractors.

BC, the much broader question is transfers: Government bureaucracy may be bigger, its decisions may be good/bad, but IMV government bureaucrats, under the guise of the State, now transfer far more.

They also spend more.

[August1991]

You are not including state and local government in your assumption. GDP does not change in the denominator.

I am including state/local spending, or provincial/municipal spending.

By and large, various levels of US governments buy about 20% of GDP, and transfer another 20%. Similarly, various levels of Canadian governments buy about 20% of GDP, and transfer another 20%. The difference is that, in the 20%, Canadian governments hire medical staff, and the US governments hire military people.

Transfers? They are RRQ, OAP, UIC etc.

Paul Krugman succinctly described the US federal government as a tank with a pension. OTOH, Canadian governments are a nurse with a pension.

We can have tanks, nurses or pensions. Pick two.

Edited December 9, 2012 by August1991

[Bonam]

We can have tanks, nurses or pensions. Pick two.

If that were really the choice, I for one would pick tanks and nurses... pensions are a dumb idea, people can and should save for themselves.

[dre]

If that were really the choice, I for one would pick tanks and nurses... pensions are a dumb idea, people can and should save for themselves.

Pensions are a great idea because they prevent free riders. It would be a huge mistake to get rid of them and it would cost tax payers a fortune.

[bush_cheney2004]

I am including state/local spending, or provincial/municipal spending.

No, you only think you are.

Paul Krugman succinctly described the US federal government as a tank with a pension. OTOH, Canadian governments are a nurse with a pension.

We can have tanks, nurses or pensions. Pick two.

This is just an updated guns or butter discussion. Canada has less of both.

Edited December 9, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

If that were really the choice, I for one would pick tanks and nurses... pensions are a dumb idea, people can and should save for themselves.

No pension? If a society offers no reward at the end of life for honest behaviour, then why be honest early in life?

This is just an updated guns or butter discussion.

It is, and what will 21st Century America choose.

Pensions are a great idea because they prevent free riders. It would be a huge mistake to get rid of them and it would cost tax payers a fortune.

So then, do you prefer nurses or tanks?

-----

We in Canada - like most of Europe - have chosen pensions and nurses.

America, fortunately for us, has chosen tanks and pensions.

Edited December 9, 2012 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

It is, and what will 21st Century America choose.

It will choose both, just as before.

[August1991]

It will choose both, just as before.

Both?

According to Steyn, society can choose guns, butter or nurses.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes...both...as long as others keep buying American debt. ZIRP conditions make this even more likely in the short term.

As for nurses, many of Canada's go to the USA.

[August1991]

Yes...both...as long as others keep buying American debt. ZIRP conditions make this even more likely in the short term.

"... as long as others keep buying American debt."? According to Steyn, this means that China is paying for the US military.

As ecologists would argue, is that scheme sustainable?

----

"ZIRP conditions make this even more likely in the short term." If US baby boomers, for existential reasons, fall into a liquidity trap and choose cash over risk, I wonder whether any State can intervene to correct matters.

God knows why a "Zero Interest Rate" (ZIR) occurs. Collapsing house prices? Demography? Fear of death? Short term, indeed,

Edited December 11, 2012 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

"... as long as others keep buying American debt."? According to Steyn, this means that China is paying for the US military.

Or China is paying for US "butter".

As ecologists would argue, is that scheme sustainable?

It is until it isn't.

----

God knows why a "Zero Interest Rate" (ZIR) occurs. Collapsing house prices? Demography? Fear of death? Short term, indeed,

ZIRP exists because the US Fed says so. Short term is now about ten years.

Edited December 11, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

ZIRP exists because the US Fed says so.

The US Fed can possibly decide nominal interest rates. It can't fix the real interest rate.

Short term is now about ten years.

10 years? Where did you get that number?

Is that the median life expectancy of baby boomers?