Obama's Tax Compromise

[loveisdead]

I think it warrants its own thread. We've talked about it in a few other threads now so here's a good place to discuss why it happened, how it happened, if it's good for the country and so on.
President Barack Obama has sacrificed one of his top campaign promises -- raising taxes on high earners -- in a compromise with Republicans to extend current tax rates for everyone for another two years.
link (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/07/compromise-moves-obameter/)

[tkamB]

What I really hate about this bill is that the "compromises" should really have already been enacted in the first place. Obama gave up too easily on this.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I'm not an econ expert so I don't know what to think. The Bush-era tax cuts have been in place for the past nine years, yet job creation hasn't been stellar in the past 3 years. Why do conservatives believe the extension will save the economy? The socialist part of me thinks, "why the fuck does the rich get a break? They should help fix the deficit, they can afford it."
Yet, partisan politics aside, I want the economy to improve, despite who has the majority in Congress or who holds the White House.
If Republicans think they can fix the economy, then I hope they're right.
I still defend Obama, but this is one issue I felt he caved. Yet, a year ago I predicted he's going to mirror Clinton's first term.

[loveisdead]

What I really hate about this bill is that the "compromises" should really have already been enacted in the first place. Obama gave up too easily on this.

Yeah but Republicans wouldn't have bit. Not that they should have to.

[loveisdead]

Jason, since I know you'll read this. Would you still stand behind this? (http://www.absolutepunk.net/journal.php?do=showcomments&j=1&e=62461)
The opposite does not work. The "rich" make more money when the economy is doing well and will make back their "taxes" simply because the economy is on the up-swing. They were taxed more under Clinton and EVERYONE was doing well - compared to just the top .1%. Have some compassion for the rest of the country -- because if everyone else is fucked, the rich won't stay rich - nor will anyone else get rich.

The middle class is what makes our economy work - they need the tax cuts - not the richest .1%.

[Machu505]

I wasn't too sure about it at first. For one, continuing the rates for the wealthy hurts to even say, and lowering the estate tax is nearly unthinkable for me. And this will come back in two years to haunt Obama's reelection campaign. However, I'll stomach the bullshit for the extension of unemployment benefits. All I needed to cement my feelings was to see that Glenn Beck opposes it.

[loveisdead]

I'm not an econ expert so I don't know what to think. The Bush-era tax cuts have been in place for the past nine years, yet job creation hasn't been stellar in the past 3 years. Why do conservatives believe the extension will save the economy? The socialist part of me thinks, "why the fuck does the rich get a break? They should help fix the deficit, they can afford it."
Yet, partisan politics aside, I want the economy to improve, despite who has the majority in Congress or who holds the White House.
If Republicans think they can fix the economy, then I hope they're right.
I still defend Obama, but this is one issue I felt he caved. Yet, a year ago I predicted he's going to mirror Clinton's first term.

It's a cave in from what he said in the campaign for sure.

[asmolitor]

job creation wasn't great for the entire duration of the "bush tax cuts." i'm baffled how we, as a country, got into pretending that the recession did anything other than magnify and accelerate structural deficiencies already in place.

and the "rich," well, unless you're a small business owner with no understanding of the current tax system, income tax shouldn't be an issue correlated with job creation. yes, that opens pandora's box as to the implications of reforming the whole system, but that's an argument for another day. i didn't terribly hate schumer's backhanded compromise - because even at $1MM (or any arbitrary number, really), job creation generally isn't an end-all decision made by salaried executives.

the estate tax has absolutely no implications on economic growth or job creation, and it's disappointing that only in the fili-bernie did someone actually stand up and wonder if the waltons remaining at the top of the forbes list should be weighed against money better used to allocate benefits along the entire income spectrum.

[saysmydoctor]

job creation wasn't great for the entire duration of the "bush tax cuts." i'm baffled how we, as a country, got into pretending that the recession did anything other than magnify and accelerate structural deficiencies already in place.
Exactly.

To call this good politics--sure, fine, I can see how it is good politics. But good policy? Baffles me.

[x togepi x]

it's like, do the democrats secretly want sarah palin to be president in 2012 or something?

[asmolitor]

Exactly.

To call this good politics--sure, fine, I can see how it is good politics. But good policy? Baffles me.

have you actually sat and thought about the calculated genius of the bush administration?

setting tax cuts to expire upon midterms of the next party's probable power, given the pendulum swings and minority momentums in midterms? continuing the military-industrial complex against an intangible enemy with an ever-present threat?

i almost respect their devious planning at this point.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

It's a cave in from what he said in the campaign for sure.

From the perspective of Obama, he knows that he's going to have to spend the next two years dealing with "the party of no." He's going to have to compromise on a few things.

[captivewear]

Obama created/saved more jobs with one stimulus plan then Bush did in 8 years!
Bush's tax rates were about the worst thing that could have happened to this country's economic system.
No matter what you have heard the rich don't create many jobs and yet they control 95% of the money yet only create between 20-25% of job creation in the US. They are the ones that are taking away your jobs and sending them overseas so they can get richer and you get more poor. Welcome to America's version of Capitalism.

[saysmydoctor]

I never doubt Karl Rove.

[<*)))><]

According to Ben Bernanke this is a good idea, to extend the tax cuts.

[loveisdead]

The money would have been better spent repairing and bettering our infrastructure.

[<*)))><]

QPmmWe5iulQ

[Scrandon]

have you actually sat and thought about the calculated genius of the bush administration?

setting tax cuts to expire upon midterms of the next party's probable power, given the pendulum swings and minority momentums in midterms? continuing the military-industrial complex against an intangible enemy with an ever-present threat?

i almost respect their devious planning at this point.
I thought he just made the tax cuts for as long as he possibly could without having to go for extra approval form Congress. I just don't see them as the "genius mad evil scientist" types.

[Scrandon]

Obama created/saved more jobs with one stimulus plan then Bush did in 8 years!
Bush's tax rates were about the worst thing that could have happened to this country's economic system.
No matter what you have heard the rich don't create many jobs and yet they control 95% of the money yet only create between 20-25% of job creation in the US. They are the ones that are taking away your jobs and sending them overseas so they can get richer and you get more poor. Welcome to America's version of Capitalism.
Down boy.

[DeviateRogue]

I fear that the bush tax cut's will carry on for years and years. I hope it gets struck down in 2012.

[loveisdead]

I fear that the bush tax cut's will carry on for years and years. I hope it gets struck down in 2012.

By whom?

[DeviateRogue]

By whom?

By I don't give a Fuck. I feel like these tax's cuts will continue to pass every time it's up for cancellation, turning a temporary fiscal aid, into a crutch furthering the deficit.

[rye-dog]

as a tax paying american with a job, i like my money in my pocket, not the government's... they will just go off and spend it on stupid crap anyways and i for one don't want to fund that.

[The Personist]

as a tax paying american with a job, i like my money in my pocket, not the government's... they will just go off and spend it on stupid crap anyways and i for one don't want to fund that.

Worst first post ever.



Anyway, the socialist in me finds this unacceptable.

[J.C.]

I've learned not to doubt the rye-dog on matters of economic policy.

[abstain]

What a cunt.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Without the compromise, the Republicans would have just continued to filibuster the middle class tax cuts until all of the tax cuts expired. Unfairly, Obama and the Democrats would be blamed for letting taxes rise in a time of awful economic stress. Obama would be forced to extend the tax cuts but without most of the concessions granted to them by Republicans in this compromise with the added shit bird bonus of being seen as more partisan and unable to lead the country through tough economic times.

Yeah I'll take this compromise gladly over the above scenario. Democrats fucked up by stalling on this issue until the last possible minute. They should have got it over with before moving on to Health Care Reform.

[Juan Jose]

I personally think the tax cuts should expire for everyone, people were doing fine before the bush tax cuts and after they were enacted all the surplus projections became huge deficits. If they allow taxes to go back to Clinton era taxes we'll save ourselves a 4 trillion dollar addition to the debt over the next 10 years

[caveBEAR]

What a cunt.

Who? Obama? rye-dog? We're going to need you to be a little more clear here...

[caveBEAR]

Yeah I'll take this compromise gladly over the above scenario. Democrats fucked up by stalling on this issue until the last possible minute. They should have got it over with before moving on to Health Care Reform.

I would have liked to see that, only because the lunatics didn't hold so much sway over public opinion on Obama pre-HCR.

[EvilZeppelin]

lcLWDGb0RqA&feature=player_embedded

[loveisdead]

Who? Obama? rye-dog? We're going to need you to be a little more clear here...

:lol:

[deFobbed14yrs]

Who? Obama? rye-dog? We're going to need you to be a little more clear here...

Dude has 27 posts, you can't expect that much from him.

[Simulcast]

I'm glad our political system works how it's supposed to. Compromise is a good thing. Anyone that goes into something like this expecting to get their way 100% is delusional.

[loveisdead]

I'm glad our political system works how it's supposed to. Compromise is a good thing. Anyone that goes into something like this expecting to get their way 100% is delusional.

So the Republicans have been delusional for the past 2 years. Great.

[Simulcast]

So the Republicans have been delusional for the past 2 years. Great.

Yeah, that's why Health Care and several stimulus packages have passed.

[loveisdead]

Yeah, that's why Health Care and several stimulus packages have passed.

With the backing of how many republicans?

[loveisdead]

I'm glad our political system works how it's supposed to. Compromise is a good thing. Anyone that goes into something like this expecting to get their way 100% is delusional.

John Boehner would disagree (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2010/12/sen_john_boehner_likes_to_cry.html) .

[Simulcast]

With the backing of how many republicans?

Not many, but Obama/Pelosi had to compromise to get it passed. This is good.

John Boehner would disagree (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2010/12/sen_john_boehner_likes_to_cry.html) .

McConnell wouldn't.

Fuck John Boehner. As if what we need is another weak looking politician in Washington.

[loveisdead]

Not many, but Obama/Pelosi had to compromise to get it passed. This is good.
It wasn't good. The stimulus bill was not nearly as good as it should have been because there was too much compromising. The health care bill wasn't as good as it could've been because of compromising. Obama should have been able to get things pushed through that he was elected to do and he couldn't because of compromising.

McConnell wouldn't.

Fuck John Boehner. As if what we need is another weak looking politician in Washington.
Well I can agree with this haha.

[Simulcast]

It wasn't good. The stimulus bill was not nearly as good as it should have been because there was too much compromising. The health care bill wasn't as good as it could've been because of compromising. Obama should have been able to get things pushed through that he was elected to do and he couldn't because of compromising.

And yet now you would agree that tax cuts are necessary, coupled with a reduction in spending. He wasn't elected to push through health care and to enact trillions of dollars of spending. This is why the Dems lost 60+ seats this last election. Part of that can be blamed on the economy, but you can't possibly believe all 60 seats were lost because of that.

[saysmydoctor]

Oh, yeah, calling this a compromise is incredibly misleading.

[loveisdead]

And yet now you would agree that tax cuts are necessary, coupled with a reduction in spending. He wasn't elected to push through health care and to enact trillions of dollars of spending. This is why the Dems lost 60+ seats this last election. Part of that can be blamed on the economy, but you can't possibly believe all 60 seats were lost because of that.

Tax cuts for the middle class. My stance on taxes hasn't changed in over 2 years. I'm saying the same shit now as I said during the election.

[loveisdead]

Oh, yeah, calling this a compromise is incredibly misleading.

How so?

[Simulcast]

Tax cuts for the middle class. My stance on taxes hasn't changed in over 2 years. I'm saying the same shit now as I said during the election.

The middle class won't hire itself.

[The Personist]

I think we need to seize the means of production sometime in the near future.

[The Indigo]

I voted for Obama because I didn't like shit like tax breaks for the rich. They don't help the economy. I've been cutting Obama a lot of breaks during his presidency, but I'm at a loss on this one. He gave up too easily.

[The Indigo]

I think we need to seize the means of production sometime in the near future.
Like.

[saysmydoctor]

How so?
I'd consider the unemployment benefits extension a win for the Republicans because they get to go back to their states and districts and say they extended the benefits and extended tax cuts. They got the win in this compromise without having to give up anything.

I mean, do you really think those extensions were hard to swallow? Please.
The middle class won't hire itself.
Apparently, neither will the upper class either, no matter how many tax breaks, incentives, and credits we give them. Unless, you are contesting that real unemployment is not at 16.6% (and probably higher now, this is the source I have: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/The-real-unemployment-rate.aspx)

[caveBEAR]

Dude has 27 posts, you can't expect that much from him.

Those 27 posts are from him sounding like a moron in the Daily Show thread while arguing with me.

[GeeBee]

The middle class won't hire itself.
The people with 2 trillion dollars just sitting there won't either.
We've tried Trickle Down, remember?

[Jason Tate]

I voted for Obama because I didn't like shit like tax breaks for the rich. They don't help the economy. I've been cutting Obama a lot of breaks during his presidency, but I'm at a loss on this one. He gave up too easily.
What did he give up? He didn't have any option on that one ...

[The Personist]

Global capitalism is the most destructive force of the 20th century.

[Jason Tate]

Oh, yeah, calling this a compromise is incredibly misleading.
Not really.

[Jason Tate]

Global capitalism is the most destructive force of the 20th century.
Could be argued it's the most creative force as well ...

[The Personist]

Could be argued it's the most creative force as well ...

In what sense?

[DeviateRogue]

I'm not for this the middle class should get tax breaks because or the rich should because... I feel if you ARE going to have the tax cuts give it to everyone, or no one.

I think people feel they have a sense of entitlement to these cuts and will consistently depend on them renewing every few years, further weakening the economy with keeping the same unemployment rate and further increasing the deficit.

[caveBEAR]

The people with 2 trillion dollars just sitting there won't either.
We've tried Trickle Down, remember?

Well, plenty trickled down, just so happens none of it was monetary in any sense...

[caveBEAR]

I'm not for this the middle class should get tax breaks because or the rich should because... I feel if you ARE going to have the tax cuts give it to everyone, or no one.

I think people feel they have a sense of entitlement to these cuts and will consistently depend on them renewing every few years, further weakening the economy with keeping the same unemployment rate and further increasing the deficit.

Hang on...in the first paragraph, you think everyone or no one should get the tax cuts, then in the second paragraph, you talk about how just now (when everyone had tax cuts) that nothing happened, and people will rely on them forever without doing anything.

So...what was your point exactly?

[Simulcast]

The people with 2 trillion dollars just sitting there won't either.
We've tried Trickle Down, remember?

The people with two trillion dollars created the entities which employ the middle class. What would you do if they didn't exist?

[DeviateRogue]

Hang on...in the first paragraph, you think everyone or no one should get the tax cuts, then in the second paragraph, you talk about how just now (when everyone had tax cuts) that nothing happened, and people will rely on them forever without doing anything.

So...what was your point exactly?

Ha you got me, I just think that even if I don't agree with the tax cuts, if you are going to extend them it's only fair to extend them for everyone.

[loveisdead]

In what sense?

I would imagine he's going for the competition creates the need for companies to constantly develop and improve their products angle. I think of agree with Jason on that.

[Simulcast]

Global capitalism is the most destructive force of the 20th century.

I think communism (or more accurately, centralized government) might have capitalism beat in that department.

[drpepper09]

I personally think the tax cuts should expire for everyone, people were doing fine before the bush tax cuts and after they were enacted all the surplus projections became huge deficits. If they allow taxes to go back to Clinton era taxes we'll save ourselves a 4 trillion dollar addition to the debt over the next 10 years

This. People can suck it up.

[loveisdead]

I've never been hired by a poor person.

Like it or not the rich are the people who create jobs, and taking money from them to give to people who don't want to work does nothing for anyone.

Giving tax breaks to the middle class gives them more money to spend and further stimulate our economy. That puts the money back into the rich people's hands and allows them to expand business.

[loveisdead]

This. People can suck it up.

Yeah fuck the poor. Use your bootstraps mirite?

[caveBEAR]

Ha you got me, I just think that even if I don't agree with the tax cuts, if you are going to extend them it's only fair to extend them for everyone.

Why do you feel that way?

[caveBEAR]

I've never been hired by a poor person.

Like it or not the rich are the people who create jobs, and taking money from them to give to people who don't want to work does nothing for anyone.

It's hard to give the money back to the rich people when no one can afford pointless shit.

[loveisdead]

Ha you got me, I just think that even if I don't agree with the tax cuts, if you are going to extend them it's only fair to extend them for everyone.

You'd be better off advocating for a fair tax. And even thats a horrible position.

[Jason Tate]

In what sense?
Much of the innovation - and technical revolution - can be attributed, in some degree, to capitalism. It's a volatile system. And yes, can be extremely destructive. But I think we can see it's been both.

[The Personist]

I would imagine he's going for the competition creates the need for companies to constantly develop and improve their products angle. I think of agree with Jason on that.
ah, I see. I mean, I suppose I agree, though I will say that the flagrant violations of human rights and subjugation and destruction of the lives of millions of people poses a problem for me. But I don't deny this point and its validity.

I think communism (or more accurately, centralized government) might have capitalism beat in that department.

I mean, global capitalism is in part responsible for the way thousands of people die of starvation every day. The Nazis and the Soviets were eventually stopped. Capitalism keeps on going.

[Jason Tate]

This. People can suck it up.
It's easy for a 19 year old not yet paying any reasonable taxes to make this kind of claim.

[Simulcast]

I mean, global capitalism is in part responsible for the way thousands of people die of starvation every day. The Nazis and the Soviets were eventually stopped. Capitalism keeps on going.


Yeah, North Korea and Venezuela are doing just fine now.

Global capitalism has a long way to go to catch up to the death totals of Pot, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. So no, global capitalism was not the most destructive force in the 20th century.

[Jason Tate]

Man, haven't had to use this link and graphic since the election.

As Princeton professor Uwe E. Reinhardt points out in the New York Times, business investment actually rose (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/does-the-democrats-stimulus-package-make-economic-sense/) following President Clinton’s tax increases and fell following the Reagan and Bush tax cuts (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/does-the-democrats-stimulus-package-make-economic-sense/).

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/private-investment-as-percent-of-gdp.jpg

Furthermore, as Reinhardt pointed out, even rich business owners won’t expand their businesses if no one has money to spend (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/does-the-democrats-stimulus-package-make-economic-sense/): Specifically, I would challenge supply-siders to explain why the owners of small businesses — say, restaurants — would expand the capacity of their establishments or build new restaurants at a time when customers stay home, even if they were given a tax cut on the income from their restaurants.

[caveBEAR]

Man, haven't had to use this link and graphic since the election.

As Princeton professor Uwe E. Reinhardt points out in the New York Times, business investment actually rose (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/does-the-democrats-stimulus-package-make-economic-sense/) following President Clinton’s tax increases and fell following the Reagan and Bush tax cuts (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/does-the-democrats-stimulus-package-make-economic-sense/).


Furthermore, as Reinhardt pointed out, even rich business owners won’t expand their businesses if no one has money to spend (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/does-the-democrats-stimulus-package-make-economic-sense/):Specifically, I would challenge supply-siders to explain why the owners of small businesses — say, restaurants — would expand the capacity of their establishments or build new restaurants at a time when customers stay home, even if they were given a tax cut on the income from their restaurants.


I'm confused...are you for the tax cuts or against them? Because this post would lead me to believe you'd be against them...
X-)

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, North Korea and Venezuela are doing just fine now.

Global capitalism has a long way to go to catch up to the death totals of Pot, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. So no, global capitalism was not the most destructive force in the 20th century.
Someone doesn't know what communism is apparently.

[Jason Tate]

I'm confused...are you for the tax cuts or against them? Because this post would lead me to believe you'd be against them...
X-)
That post shows why raising them on a certain percentage isn't as bad as it's being made out to be. There is no option for that though, it's either all or nothing. And if we take all and can get some other stuff tossed in - I'm definitely for them. Not sure why that's confusing - or why anybody would not be for them.

[Simulcast]

Someone doesn't know what communism is apparently.


Someone didn't read my previous post, apparently.

I think communism (or more accurately, centralized government) might have capitalism beat in that department.

[loveisdead]

I'm confused...are you for the tax cuts or against them? Because this post would lead me to believe you'd be against them...
X-)

Hahahaha glad you said it.

[caveBEAR]

That post shows why raising them on a certain percentage isn't as bad as it's being made out to be. There is no option for that though, it's either all or nothing. And if we take all and can get some other stuff tossed in - I'm definitely for them.

Oh, gotcha. Ha ha, then I'm pretty sure I mostly agree with you. I'd rather the top 2% had not gotten the extensions, but not at the risk of all the other things the Republicans were holding over our heads.

[DeviateRogue]

You'd be better off advocating for a fair tax. And even thats a horrible position.

I'm not an economist, so I don't claim to be right, but I feel as though these tax cuts aren't necessary and only increase the deficit further, and whenever it comes up to be voted upon, Americans (since we're dumbasses) will constantly complain not to raise taxes therefore making a temporary tax cut permanent.

[Jason Tate]

Oh, gotcha. Ha ha, then I'm pretty sure I mostly agree with you. I'd rather the top 2% had not gotten the extensions, but not at the risk of all the other things the Republicans were holding over our heads.
If it continues the way it has so far -- the senate republicans will bail and things are going to get worse.

It looks likely at this point that the House will vote (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46369.html) to amend the estate tax in the tax deal. If the vote succeeds, there's somewhere between zero chance and no chance that Senate Republicans will accept it, particularly given that they can just wait until January and negotiate this out with a Republican House. Democrats will hammer them for holding the deal up on behalf of 6,000 estates, but Republicans don't seem terribly worried about being on the side of estate-tax repeal, and the polls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302373.html)back them up.

http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.c...ae e56c6b1525 (http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=f19acd433081dc0d042fae e56c6b1525)

Well, if we're wishing for things I wish we'd change some of the tax code and add more brackets. But, we're not going to see that.

[J.C.]

I've never been hired by a poor person.

Like it or not the rich are the people who create jobs, and taking money from them to give to people who don't want to work does nothing for anyone.

You make me want to murder kittens.

[Jason Tate]

I'm not an economist, so I don't claim to be right, but I feel as though these tax cuts aren't necessary and only increase the deficit further, and whenever it comes up to be voted upon, Americans (since we're dumbasses) will constantly complain not to raise taxes therefore making a temporary tax cut permanent.
Just curious, when was the last time you paid taxes? It's not cause we're all dumbasses. It's because some of us don't like giving 1/3rd of our income to a government that spends it mostly on weapons and apparently now even some sex slaves - and has no real interest in ever dealing with the deficit. That's why I get annoyed with tax increases.

[loveisdead]

I'm not an economist, so I don't claim to be right, but I feel as though these tax cuts aren't necessary and only increase the deficit further, and whenever it comes up to be voted upon, Americans (since we're dumbasses) will constantly complain not to raise taxes therefore making a temporary tax cut permanent.

It's not as black and white as you're making it, but you're onto the basics of it. The tax cut on the middle class would go a decent way in stimulating the economy while the tax increase on the rich would help curb the deficit.

[drpepper09]

It's easy for a 19 year old not yet paying any reasonable taxes to make this kind of claim.

a 5% (to 36%) increase isn't ridiculous. To just revert the taxes to Clinton Era is not some huge tax hike and if I recall Clinton Era economics provided a surplus for the first time since 1957 when the highest income tax was 91%. Granted I may have sounded like a shit for saying "suck it up," but hell, people complain "oh no the deficit is so high, how can we fix this?" "raise taxes?" "COMMUNIST!" Raising the taxes would help our deficit, help the government sustain programs like Social Security, better our Education system, and our roads. Why is this such a terrible thing?

[caveBEAR]

Just curious, when was the last time you paid taxes? It's not cause we're all dumbasses. It's because some of us don't like giving 1/3rd of our income to a government that spends it mostly on weapons and apparently now even some sex slaves - and has no real interest in ever dealing with the deficit. That's why I get annoyed with tax increases.

You very well could be the only person I know who doesn't want tax hikes because the government uses them for wars. It's almost always fucking 'welfare'.

[Simulcast]

It's not as black and white as you're making it, but you're onto the basics of it. The tax cut on the middle class would go a decent way in stimulating the economy while the tax increase on the rich would help curb the deficit.

Higher taxes on the rich provide incentive for them not to pay. Ask Timmy Geithner, he'll tell you.

[DeviateRogue]

Just curious, when was the last time you paid taxes? It's not cause we're all dumbasses. It's because some of us don't like giving 1/3rd of our income to a government that spends it mostly on weapons and apparently now even some sex slaves - and has no real interest in ever dealing with the deficit. That's why I get annoyed with tax increases.

Well I pay taxes whenever I purchase something silly.

But yeah, I know this issue doesn't necessarily affect me, just trying to voice my view.

P.S Don't forget about the bailouts, shit makes me sick.

@BeerfortheBear I understand what your saying, but this goes into what Tate said in a way, I'm sure most of the rich wouldn't care if they had an increase in tax, but if goes to funding a government they don't agree with, then they too, have a reason to not want a tax increase.

I just believe it's unfair to give the middle class a break, and the upper class more taxes. But, hey life isn't fair.

[kidinthebushes]

For Democrats who look at the rich as evil, this is just the worst.

[loveisdead]

Attention all Americans. If Obama raises your taxes, just don't pay them. Easy as that, Eh simulcast?

[kidinthebushes]

Worst first post ever.



Anyway, the socialist in me finds this unacceptable.

Because socialism works....

[loveisdead]

For Democrats who look at the rich as evil, this is just the worst.

Our pal Bernie helped put that in perspective.

[loveisdead]

Because socialism works....

I'll let the personist take this one.

[Simulcast]

Attention all Americans. If Obama raises your taxes, just don't pay them. Easy as that, Eh simulcast?

You got a problem, buddy?

It is easier for the rich to avoid paying taxes. It happens all the time.

[Jason Tate]

a 5% (to 36%) increase isn't ridiculous. To just revert the taxes to Clinton Era is not some huge tax hike and if I recall Clinton Era economics provided a surplus for the first time since 1957 when the highest income tax was 91%. Granted I may have sounded like a shit for saying "suck it up," but hell, people complain "oh no the deficit is so high, how can we fix this?" "raise taxes?" "COMMUNIST!" Raising the taxes would help our deficit, help the government sustain programs like Social Security, better our Education system, and our roads. Why is this such a terrible thing?
Well, when you get to the point that you're making money -- I am going to go out on a limb and assume that handing over 36% of it, mostly for shit you probably don't agree with it being spent on, is going to tick you off a little bit. But maybe you're not like me and don't care where the money goes. I do. I'd gladly pay more if I had more of a say in where it was going.

I'm fine looking at return to Clinton era rates (actually, I'd rather we add more tax brackets first) after we've got a better grasp on the current economy. Now is not the time.

I never said it's a terrible thing. But the possibility of it happening is impossible in the current political landscape.

[Jason Tate]

You very well could be the only person I know who doesn't want tax hikes because the government uses them for wars. It's almost always fucking 'welfare'.
That's what happens when you get my extreme liberalism matched up with my fiscal conservatism. Haha. And why I support the tax receipt idea that was floating around (showing Americans where their money goes). I'd be more willing to pay for more to welfare, education, etc. I'm not so keen on that bomb that killed the innocent child.

The government sorta sucks when it comes to spending money.

[loveisdead]

You got a problem, buddy?

It is easier for the rich to avoid paying taxes. It happens all the time.

I'm just pointing out that the argument of "oh well they'll just wanna not pay increased taxes" is sort of insane.

[Jason Tate]

For Democrats who look at the rich as evil, this is just the worst.
For Republicans that look at the poor as lazy, this is just heaven.

:rolleyes:

[Simulcast]

I'm just pointing out that the argument of "oh well they'll just wanna not pay increased taxes" is sort of insane.

Yeah, it's as insane as Teresa Heinz paying 13% of her taxes in 2004, and shoving the rest of her money into tax-free securities.

[drpepper09]

Well, when you get to the point that you're making money -- I am going to go out on a limb and assume that handing over 36% of it, mostly for shit you probably don't agree with it being spent on, is going to tick you off a little bit. But maybe you're not like me and don't care where the money goes. I do. I'd gladly pay more if I had more of a say in where it was going.

I'm fine looking at return to Clinton era rates (actually, I'd rather we add more tax brackets first) after we've got a better grasp on the current economy. Now is not the time.

I never said it's a terrible thing. But the possibility of it happening is impossible in the current political landscape.

I agree, it probably would tick me off, but in the end I'd be glad that a portion of my money was still being spent where i wanted it.

I would fully support a system where people can dictate where their taxes go. I've actually discussed that concept with friends, but to actually implement that system would be insane. It would end up being a self serving shitstorm of poor people asking for more welfare and people working for businesses like halliburton asking for more defense spending.

I didn't say you thought it was a terrible thing, i was saying basically that the average american demands more benefits without having to pay the price. On that note, this current tax compromise is bullshit because not only are we increasing spending for unemployment, but we're extending all tax cuts. Raise the deficit more. yay!

[loveisdead]

Yeah, it's as insane as Teresa Heinz paying 13% of her taxes in 2004, and shoving the rest of her money into tax-free securities.

And that's wrong. And that's what maybe 3% of these people would end up doing. Sorry to be bratty with you, this whole thing put me in a worse mood than I was already in. I like you, I'll be a bit more civil for the rest of this.

[Jason Tate]

I agree, it probably would tick me off, but in the end I'd be glad that a portion of my money was still being spent where i wanted it.

I would fully support a system where people can dictate where their taxes go. I've actually discussed that concept with friends, but to actually implement that system would be insane. It would end up being a self serving shitstorm of poor people asking for more welfare and people working for businesses like halliburton asking for more defense spending.

I didn't say you thought it was a terrible thing, i was saying basically that the average american demands more benefits without having to pay the price. On that note, this current tax compromise is bullshit because not only are we increasing spending for unemployment, but we're extending all tax cuts. Raise the deficit more. yay!
Trust me, when you're writing the checks - you're not going to be happy no matter where your money is going. Even less so when you see where the government is spending it.

Um ... the unemployment benefits being extended are probably the most stimulative portion of the compromise. You're against the liberal and conservative positions at the same time. Interesting. And I'll reiterate: no one really cares about the deficit. It's something to harp on ... but, the politicians and the electorate don't really give a fuck. And any stimulative action is going to cost $.

[The Personist]

Because socialism works....



For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelise in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realised itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the ‘end of ideologies’ and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth.
- Jacques Derrida

I can't speak about Marxism or communism or socialism from an economic perspective because it's been awhile since I've read Marx, and furthermore my interest lies more in philosophy than in the economy. However, my simple question is this: how can you reject such a system wholesale? I suppose Dom would be better equipped to argue this since he's the resident Marxist, but I'd be willing to bet your conception of socialism is distorted to begin with. So, before we continue this, I'd like to give you a chance to describe what socialism is, what communism is, even what Marxism is, in your own words, without opining about any of them. After you have indifferently described each one, I'll gladly hear your views on them, but my first concern is that you have no idea what you're dismissing here.

To return to Derrida's quote (and this goes out to Simulcast as well): how can we deny the innumerable tragedies taking place even as we presumably move past the "bad old ways" that killed people before? And, to extrapolate from Derrida, I think it's ludicrous to point fingers at places where alleged "socialist" governments are causing problems when we ourselves are blind to our own shortcomings and the destructive power of all the systems we more or less tacitly accept under a liberal democracy and capitalist system. I certainly don't think the way North Korea runs is better than the US; however, I don't think that means the US should excuse myriad egregious transgressions of human rights just because it's doing one less "bad" thing than North Korea, or Venezuela, or whomever else we're allegedly superior to as a country.

[DeviateRogue]

And that's wrong. And that's what maybe 3% of these people would end up doing. Sorry to be bratty with you, this whole thing put me in a worse mood than I was already in. I like you, I'll be a bit more civil for the rest of this.
I found nothing wrong with this post, You're probably the most civil person I've seen in the Politics forum, and for that sir, I tip my hat to you

[loveisdead]

I found nothing wrong with this post, You're probably the most civil person I've seen in the Politics forum, and for that sir, I tip my hat to you

Thanks. I generally try and be.

[drpepper09]

Trust me, when you're writing the checks - you're not going to be happy no matter where your money is going. Even less so when you see where the government is spending it.

Um ... the unemployment benefits being extended are probably the most stimulative portion of the compromise. You're against the liberal and conservative positions at the same time. Interesting. And I'll reiterate: no one really cares about the deficit. It's something to harp on ... but, the politicians and the electorate don't really give a fuck. And any stimulative action is going to cost $.

My Republican friends care about the deficit, but they probably just use it as a reason to hate Obama. I'm by no means against the unemployment benefits, I support them. However, after seeing what happened to California where people want the benefits from the government, but aren't willing to pay for it, its a slippery slope to say we can have both, and just drive this country deeper into shit.

I liked what Bernie Sanders said about the whole thing (paraphrase): "if the republicans are going to claim they want to reduce the deficit, but give their wallstreet friends tax breaks, then they can no longer complain about the deficit."

[loveisdead]

The personist (I forgot your name again) referencing Derrida? No way.

[The Personist]

The personist (I forgot your name again) referencing Derrida? No way.

David! but, Ryan (I think that's your name, right?!), I will admit I stole that quote from the Philosophy thread where Dom posted it many weeks ago.

I see no reason why NOT to reference Derrida. He's the man.

[loveisdead]

David! but, Ryan (I think that's your name, right?!), I will admit I stole that quote from the Philosophy thread where Dom posted it many weeks ago.

I see no reason why NOT to reference Derrida. He's the man.
That's actually what I thought it was. Shouldve went with my gut. I've been eagerly awaiting Dom's arrival in this thread.

[Jason Tate]

My Republican friends care about the deficit, but they probably just use it as a reason to hate Obama.
If they care about the deficit, they'd be doing far different things.

I'm by no means against the unemployment benefits, I support them. However, after seeing what happened to California where people want the benefits from the government, but aren't willing to pay for it, its a slippery slope to say we can have both, and just drive this country deeper into shit. Which is why we extend them for a little bit, hope they stimulate the economy to where they no longer need to be extended, the economy picks up enough to keep the white house in 2012, and then we see about raising the taxes on the top 2% like originally planned. The fact is at this point in time, there aren't a whole lot of other options. It is impossible to raise the taxes on just the top earners right now - it was tried, it failed.

I liked what Bernie Sanders said about the whole thing (paraphrase): "if the republicans are going to claim they want to reduce the deficit, but give their wallstreet friends tax breaks, then they can no longer complain about the deficit." Which is why I said no one really cares about the deficit. They like to use it for political points, but that's about it.

[The Personist]

That's actually what I thought it was. Shouldve went with my gut. I've been eagerly awaiting Dom's arrival in this thread.

:buddies:

also, that Derrida quote is one of my favorites. I love it. The man truly was a genius.

[loveisdead]

Jason, when was it tried and failed?

[Jason Tate]

I've always found this passage to question my original assumptions about how I feel about taxes. It always leads me to realize there is no one right answer with things like economics ... it's an inexact science ... felt like sharing:

Let me propose the following principle: People should get what they deserve.
A person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects
those greater contributions. Society permits him that higher income not just to
incentivize him, as it does according to utilitarian theory, but because that income is
rightfully his. This perspective is, I believe, what Robert Nozick, Milton Friedman,
and other classically liberal writers have in mind. We might call it the Just Deserts
Theory.
I am drawn to this approach in part by reflecting on some of the public anger that
we see over some very high incomes. My sense is that people are rarely outraged
when high incomes go to those who obviously earned them. When we see Steven
Spielberg make blockbuster movies, Steve Jobs introduce the iPod, David
Letterman crack funny jokes, and J.K Rowling excite countless young readers
with her Harry Potter books, we don’t object to the many millions of dollars they
earn in the process. The high incomes that generate anger are those that come
from manipulating the system. The CEO who pads the corporate board with his
cronies and the banker whose firm survives only by virtue of a government bailout
do not seem to deserve their multimillion dollar bonuses. The public perceives
them (correctly or incorrectly) as getting more than they contributed to society.
That is, if we take public attitudes as a gauge of our innate moral intuitions, then
in evaluating distributive justice, we should focus not on the marginal utility of
different individuals but on the congruence between their contributions and their
compensation.
One implication of the Just Deserts Theory is that it gives a new normative
interpretation of the equilibrium of a competitive market economy. Under a standard
set of assumptions, a competitive economy leads to an efficient allocation of
resources. But we economists often say that there is nothing particularly equitable
about that equilibrium. Perhaps we are too hasty in reaching that judgment. After
all, it is also a standard result that in a competitive equilibrium, the factors of production
are paid the value of their marginal product. That is, each person’s income
reflects the value of what he contributed to society’s production of goods and services.
One might easily conclude that, under these idealized conditions, each person
receives his just deserts.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/files/Spreading%20the%20Wealth%20Around.p df

[The Personist]

Don't know if I agree with that, but I will admit I laughed that he spelled "desserts" wrong.

[Jason Tate]

Jason, when was it tried and failed?
Senate Republicans successfully filibustered middle-class tax cuts, reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/04/AR2010120403643.html) Shailagh Murray: "The Senate on Saturday rejected two Democratic proposals to let tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, a symbolic but bitter defeat that now forces the Democratic majority to compromise with Republicans or risk allowing tax breaks to lapse for virtually everyone at year's end. Efforts quickly shifted to negotiations that would temporarily extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans, an outcome that seemed increasingly likely. The pair of nearly party-line votes - one to preserve the tax cuts for only the first $250,000 of family income, and the other for the first $1 million of income - also represented a final stand for Democrats."

[Jason Tate]

Don't know if I agree with that, but I will admit I laughed that he spelled "desserts" wrong.
Hahah, I do it all the time too.

Edit: oh, and I'm not sure I agree with all of that either -- but I like reading all sides of things from "experts" and seeing how it shakes out in the end. Harvard Economic professors at least get a little (begrudging) respect from me, even when they come out on the other side of my train of thought.

[The Personist]

Hahah, I do it all the time too.

I'm interested in your thoughts on that Derrida quote I posted above.

[loveisdead]

Jason, thanks for clearing that up. Thought you meant the policy has been tried and failed.

[Jason Tate]

I'm interested in your thoughts on that Derrida quote I posted above.
Gotta go back and re-read. Gimme a sec.

[caveBEAR]

I've always found this passage to question my original assumptions about how I feel about taxes. It always leads me to realize there is no one right answer with things like economics ... it's an inexact science ... felt like sharing:

Big Quote


http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/files/Spreading%20the%20Wealth%20Around.p df


I'm a little out of it, is the point he's trying to make that CEO's deserve their high wages because the companies they run produced the goods and services we have?

[DeviateRogue]

I'm a little out of it, is the point he's trying to make that CEO's deserve their high wages because the companies they run produced the goods and services we have?

CEO's do deserve a higher wage, but not at a what 328 employee to 1 CEO ratio, not to mention the ridiculous the bonus.

People wonder why we had a recession in the first place.

[drpepper09]

If they care about the deficit, they'd be doing far different things.


Which is why we extend them for a little bit, hope they stimulate the economy to where they no longer need to be extended, the economy picks up enough to keep the white house in 2012, and then we see about raising the taxes on the top 2% like originally planned. The fact is at this point in time, there aren't a whole lot of other options.


Which is why I said no one really cares about the deficit. They like to use it for political points, but that's about it.

I feel like if we extend it, it'll not become a short term deal, but rather a long term tax cut for the wealthy, thus why I feel like a compromise in this situation is far more negative than a typical compromise. Also, who the hell does Obama think hes going to win over with this compromise? Republicans are still going to hate him. When will he learn you can't compromise with stupidity (disclaimer: not saying all republicans are stupid, just a large portion of the politicians and figureheads).

[loveisdead]

CEO's do deserve a higher wage, but not at a what 328 employee to 1 CEO ratio, not to mention the ridiculous the bonus.

People wonder why we had a recession in the first place.
I've kinda made it clear that I'm of the "fuck the rich" mentality but there was far more to the recession than that.

[Jason Tate]

I'm interested in your thoughts on that Derrida quote I posted above.
I agree, assuming the numbers are true, with theme of the final statement (never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth) but am not certain I agree with the root cause.

[DeviateRogue]

I've kinda made it clear that I'm of the "fuck the rich" mentality but there was far more to the recession than that.

Care to explain what else was involved? I haven't taken economics yet, but I'd like to hear what caused the recession.

Also, I'm not a fuck the rich guy, I'm just fuck the greedy ass rich guys guy.

[Jason Tate]

CEO's do deserve a higher wage, but not at a what 328 employee to 1 CEO ratio, not to mention the ridiculous the bonus.

People wonder why we had a recession in the first place.
That's a gross misunderstanding of the recession.

[caveBEAR]

CEO's do deserve a higher wage, but not at a what 328 employee to 1 CEO ratio, not to mention the ridiculous the bonus.

People wonder why we had a recession in the first place.

God damn, first line ruined by the second.
:hitself:

[The Personist]

I agree, assuming the numbers are true, with theme of the final statement (never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth) but am not certain I agree with the root cause.

I agree inasmuch as I think it's foolish for us to assume we don't need to scrutinize a liberal democracy because it is wholly good in some way.

[Jason Tate]

I feel like if we extend it, it'll not become a short term deal, but rather a long term tax cut for the wealthy, thus why I feel like a compromise in this situation is far more negative than a typical compromise.
There are timelines on it.

Also, who the hell does Obama think hes going to win over with this compromise? People that listen to the actual compromise. The parts of it poll quite well (as I think it should).

Republicans are still going to hate him. When will he learn you can't compromise with stupidity (disclaimer: not saying all republicans are stupid, just a large portion of the politicians and figureheads). But he did compromise with them, and ended up getting a pretty damn good deal. Far more than most expected.

I still fail to see (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/how_the_white_house_cut_the_de.html ) what people are upset about given the situation.

[drpepper09]

Care to explain what else was involved? I haven't taken economics yet, but I'd like to hear what caused the recession.

Also, I'm not a fuck the rich guy, I'm just fuck the greedy ass rich guys guy.

In short: Housing Market.

for a general understanding taken with a grain of salt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9320 10

[drpepper09]

There are timelines on it.

People that listen to the actual compromise. The parts of it poll quite well (as I think it should).

But he did compromise with them, and ended up getting a pretty damn good deal. Far more than most expected.

True, the unemployment benefits was a plus, but you'd think that with a democrat majority for the time being we would've been able to push through without relying on republicans. I hate moderate democrats in Congress.

You know, why can't democrats just watch the republicans for a few weeks and learn some things. The republicans are like a brotherhood putting their trust in their fellow republicans. It just seems like democrats bicker so much within the party that nothing ever gets done. I just want to be able to vote for the democratic party knowing that they all will be striving for the same thing, rather than opposing each other and providing 2 years of political stalemates.

[loveisdead]

Care to explain what else was involved? I haven't taken economics yet, but I'd like to hear what caused the recession.

Also, I'm not a fuck the rich guy, I'm just fuck the greedy ass rich guys guy.
As stated before me, the housing bubble was a gigantic reason.

[The Personist]

The only thing the Democrats stand to learn from the Republicans is how to treat people like they're not people and call it family values.

[Jason Tate]

True, the unemployment benefits was a plus, but you'd think that with a democrat majority for the time being we would've been able to push through without relying on republicans. I hate moderate democrats in Congress.

You know, why can't democrats just watch the republicans for a few weeks and learn some things. The republicans are like a brotherhood putting their trust in their fellow republicans. It just seems like democrats bicker so much within the party that nothing ever gets done. I just want to be able to vote for the democratic party knowing that they all will be striving for the same thing, rather than opposing each other and providing 2 years of political stalemates.
There's too much diversity within the party for that to happen. The moderate democrats are in districts that they can't keep without being moderate Democrats.

[loveisdead]

The only thing the Democrats stand to learn from the Republicans is how to treat people like they're not people and call it family values.

Boom. Roasted.

[DeviateRogue]

True, the unemployment benefits was a plus, but you'd think that with a democrat majority for the time being we would've been able to push through without relying on republicans. I hate moderate democrats in Congress.

You know, why can't democrats just watch the republicans for a few weeks and learn some things. The republicans are like a brotherhood putting their trust in their fellow republicans. It just seems like democrats bicker so much within the party that nothing ever gets done. I just want to be able to vote for the democratic party knowing that they all will be striving for the same thing, rather than opposing each other and providing 2 years of political stalemates.

The Tea Party movement would like a word with you.

[loveisdead]

There's too much diversity within the party for that to happen. The moderate democrats are in districts that they can't keep without being moderate Democrats.

Pretty shitty that they have to serve themselves before the people.

[Jason Tate]

Pretty shitty that they have to serve themselves before the people.
In a way they are serving their constituents by voting in the way they want.

Democracy sucks when people are dumb ... heh.

[drpepper09]

There's too much diversity within the party for that to happen. The moderate democrats are in districts that they can't keep without being moderate Democrats.

Its bullshit, but at least with this election a lot of the moderates were weeded out.

The Tea Party movement would like a word with you.

What?

[loveisdead]

In a way they are serving their constituents by voting in the way they want.

Democracy sucks when people are dumb ... heh.
Sure does.

[Matt Chylak]

Pretty shitty that they have to serve themselves before the people.

Isn't that actually their job though? To vote based upon how their districts want them to?

EDIT: Jason got to it before me, damn.

[DeviateRogue]

Its bullshit, but at least with this election a lot of the moderates were weeded out.



What?

Tea Party republicans, they are at divide with normal republicans with wanting a much smaller government.

[loveisdead]

Isn't that actually their job though? To vote based upon how their districts want them to?

EDIT: Jason got to it before me, damn.

To an extent. If their district wanted to, say, secede from the union, should that congressmen lobby for that? I think their job is to do what is best for their constituents, as interpreted by their own feelings.

[drpepper09]

Tea Party republicans, they are at divide with normal republicans with wanting a much smaller government.

Ah. I thought you were insulting me in a very round-about way, lol.

[Simulcast]

- Jacques Derrida

I can't speak about Marxism or communism or socialism from an economic perspective because it's been awhile since I've read Marx, and furthermore my interest lies more in philosophy than in the economy. However, my simple question is this: how can you reject such a system wholesale? I suppose Dom would be better equipped to argue this since he's the resident Marxist, but I'd be willing to bet your conception of socialism is distorted to begin with. So, before we continue this, I'd like to give you a chance to describe what socialism is, what communism is, even what Marxism is, in your own words, without opining about any of them. After you have indifferently described each one, I'll gladly hear your views on them, but my first concern is that you have no idea what you're dismissing here.

To return to Derrida's quote (and this goes out to Simulcast as well): how can we deny the innumerable tragedies taking place even as we presumably move past the "bad old ways" that killed people before? And, to extrapolate from Derrida, I think it's ludicrous to point fingers at places where alleged "socialist" governments are causing problems when we ourselves are blind to our own shortcomings and the destructive power of all the systems we more or less tacitly accept under a liberal democracy and capitalist system. I certainly don't think the way North Korea runs is better than the US; however, I don't think that means the US should excuse myriad egregious transgressions of human rights just because it's doing one less "bad" thing than North Korea, or Venezuela, or whomever else we're allegedly superior to as a country.

Derrida never ran a business.

I don't think anyone is saying that bold part. You seem to quickly ignore all the good that capitalism has brought in your estimation of it, I think, because you're fascinated with the idea of communism as an ultimate ideal in much the same way you're fascinated with Derrida, foucalt, and so on. Anything else is quickly rejected, and done so easily by focusing on the negatives. Would it sound familiar if I was to say "Well no country, even America, truly pursues capitalism; it's been co-opted by greedy, corrupt men and hasn't been given it's fair chance on the world stage"? I could make, and back, that claim.

I am dismissing this idea:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Which purports to understand, determine, and quantify the basic needs of all humans, and somehow believes that scarce resource allocation is most efficiently determined by the state or community, rather than by the direction of prices. Regardless of who owns the means of production, the state or an equal society as a whole, no amount of planning or coordinating can ever anticipate the amount of milk that should be used towards producing yogurt over cheese, or the amount of copper needed for wiring over cookware. No amount of planning or coordinating can possibly account for the millions of products in existence and determine where the need is accurately. Need is not fixed, it fluctuates. Socialism, and it's evolution into communism, inherently ignore this reality and prevent prices from directing resources.

Capitalism, which allows prices to dictate resource allocation, is better suited to economize scarce resources. It directs scarce resources to where they are most highly valued, determined by a tangible need, demand, rather than an imaginary one. It also, ideally, provides accountability in that an entity which bids on too much of one resource, when it is more highly valued elsewhere, will soon find that it cannot make up the cost of that resource because people do not have the need for that product, forcing that entity to either stop wasting resources where they are not needed or fail. In this way, commodities like milk and copper tend to flow where they are actually needed.

[Jason Tate]

To an extent. If their district wanted to, say, secede from the union, should that congressmen lobby for that? I think their job is to do what is best for their constituents, as interpreted by their own feelings.
Interesting question.

If it was something campaigned on - and it was clear that is what his constituents want him to push for - I'd say yes, he should lobby for that. Although, I think in a representative republic ... our congressmen should tell some people to ef off.

[Matt Chylak]

To an extent. If their district wanted to, say, secede from the union, should that congressmen lobby for that? I think their job is to do what is best for their constituents, as interpreted by their own feelings.

yep, they should. republic v. democracy

[loveisdead]

So the consensus is the congressman should act according to their constituents demands, regardless of the outcome. I can't agree with that.

[Matt Chylak]

I am dismissing this idea:



Which purports to understand, determine, and quantify the basic needs of all humans, and somehow believes that scarce resource allocation is most efficiently determined by the state or community, rather than by the direction of prices. Regardless of who owns the means of production, the state or an equal society as a whole, no amount of planning or coordinating can ever anticipate the amount of milk that should be used towards producing yogurt over cheese, or the amount of copper needed for wiring over cookware. No amount of planning or coordinating can possibly account for the millions of products in existence and determine where the need is accurately. Need is not fixed, it fluctuates. Socialism, and it's evolution into communism, inherently ignore this reality and prevent prices from directing resources.

Capitalism, which allows prices to dictate resource allocation, is better suited to economize scarce resources. It directs scarce resources to where they are most highly valued, determined by a tangible need, demand, rather than an imaginary one. It also, ideally, provides accountability in that an entity which bids on too much of one resource, when it is more highly valued elsewhere, will soon find that it cannot make up the cost of that resource because people do not have the need for that product, forcing that entity to either stop wasting resources where they are not needed or fail. In this way, commodities like milk and copper tend to flow where they are actually needed.

Just wondering, how do you feel about objectivist capitalism?

[Simulcast]

Just wondering, how do you feel about objectivist capitalism?

I've read Rand, and she's quite extreme. Certain aspects, like the ideas espoused in Francisco's Money Speech (http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/moneyspeech.html), are attractive to me though.

[Matt Chylak]

I've read Rand, and she's quite extreme. Certain aspects, like the ideas espoused in Francisco's Money Speech (http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/moneyspeech.html), are attractive to me though.

haha that's one way to put it. she lets the entire world tear itself apart.

[caveBEAR]

So the consensus is the congressman should act according to their constituents demands, regardless of the outcome. I can't agree with that.

Fuck that. We elect people on the basis that they're the best option available to us, and as per this idea, I would expect the best option (or, essentially, smartest person in the room) to ignore their constituents when their constituents start spouting crazy shit. If the constituents really want to secede (or what-have-you) then the constituents can vote him out and replace him with a flackey.

[loveisdead]

Fuck that. We elect people on the basis that they're the best option available to us, and as per this idea, I would expect the best option (or, essentially, smartest person in the room) to ignore their constituents when their constituents start spouting crazy shit. If the constituents really want to secede (or what-have-you) then the constituents can vote him out and replace him with a flackey.

Someone on my side. I feel like it's been awhile.

[Machu505]

Fuck that. We elect people on the basis that they're the best option available to us, and as per this idea, I would expect the best option (or, essentially, smartest person in the room) to ignore their constituents when their constituents start spouting crazy shit. If the constituents really want to secede (or what-have-you) then the constituents can vote him out and replace him with a flackey. Being represented by someone smarter than me and with more backbone and courage than I have is what I expect from a republic. It's wonderful when a representative is respectful to those who elected him, but they shouldn't be slaves to their constituents.

EDIT: Which is why I hate Joe Manchin yet respect Shelley Moore Capito.

[The Personist]

Derrida never ran a business.
Fail to see what this has to do with anything, nor do I think he would find that a reasonable excuse for subjugating other people.

I don't think anyone is saying that bold part. You seem to quickly ignore all the good that capitalism has brought in your estimation of it, I think, because you're fascinated with the idea of communism as an ultimate ideal in much the same way you're fascinated with Derrida, foucalt, and so on. Anything else is quickly rejected, and done so easily by focusing on the negatives. Would it sound familiar if I was to say "Well no country, even America, truly pursues capitalism; it's been co-opted by greedy, corrupt men and hasn't been given it's fair chance on the world stage"? I could make, and back, that claim.
I'm not an economist, though I do know what we have isn't "pure" capitalism; however, I can say that even in a pure capitalist system, people necessarily must fail or be beneath other people, yes? Equality is not part of capitalism (again, insofar as I understand it). Even so, we can't talk pure capitalism because pure capitalism isn't what we have; we can talk about what we have, which is violent, destructive, and which creates massive gaps between classes.


Which purports to understand, determine, and quantify the basic needs of all humans, and somehow believes that scarce resource allocation is most efficiently determined by the state or community, rather than by the direction of prices. Regardless of who owns the means of production, the state or an equal society as a whole, no amount of planning or coordinating can ever anticipate the amount of milk that should be used towards producing yogurt over cheese, or the amount of copper needed for wiring over cookware. No amount of planning or coordinating can possibly account for the millions of products in existence and determine where the need is accurately. Need is not fixed, it fluctuates. Socialism, and it's evolution into communism, inherently ignore this reality and prevent prices from directing resources.

Capitalism, which allows prices to dictate resource allocation, is better suited to economize scarce resources. It directs scarce resources to where they are most highly valued, determined by a tangible need, demand, rather than an imaginary one. It also, ideally, provides accountability in that an entity which bids on too much of one resource, when it is more highly valued elsewhere, will soon find that it cannot make up the cost of that resource because people do not have the need for that product, forcing that entity to either stop wasting resources where they are not needed or fail. In this way, commodities like milk and copper tend to flow where they are actually needed.
Most of the stuff you say in this paragraph is as idealistic as the stuff you dismiss in the one above it. I don't see how capitalism AS WE HAVE IT NOW (which is what you must defend or discuss, not pure, ideal capitalism) has allowed for any of this to work in the way you describe it.

[The Personist]

Really need Dom in this thread to kick some ass.

[loveisdead]

Really need Dom in this thread to kick some ass.
I'd be interested in his thoughts towards the topic.

[Juan Jose]

Yeah fuck the poor. Use your bootstraps mirite?

the tax cut for the lower-income 98 percent of the population got wasn't that substantial. The richer 2 percent got a whole lot more tax cuts than the initial across the board cuts for all income brackets later in bush's term as the plan was phased in. On average most American taxpayers got back around 600 dollars a year. And if they kept the middle class tax cuts there'd still be a 3 trillion dollar addition to the deficit over the next10 years

[Simulcast]

Fail to see what this has to do with anything, nor do I think he would find that a reasonable excuse for subjugating other people.

I don't think he has much to offer in the way of economics.

I'm not an economist, though I do know what we have isn't "pure" capitalism; however, I can say that even in a pure capitalist system, people necessarily must fail or be beneath other people, yes? Equality is not part of capitalism (again, insofar as I understand it). Even so, we can't talk pure capitalism because pure capitalism isn't what we have; we can talk about what we have, which is violent, destructive, and which creates massive gaps between classes.

So then we can talk about what we have/had in terms of socialism and communism which has caused the deaths of tens of millions of people, no? Or does Derrida not allow that.

Most of the stuff you say in this paragraph is as idealistic as the stuff you dismiss in the one above it. I don't see how capitalism AS WE HAVE IT NOW (which is what you must defend or discuss, not pure, ideal capitalism) has allowed for any of this to work in the way you describe it.

It's not idealistic, it's inherent to how our economy functions. It's why the United States was able to use less materials per national unit of income than the Soviet Union in the 70's and 80's. It's why manufacturers in this country weren't burdened by an over abundance of materials and no way to move them, as they were in the Soviet Union.

[The Personist]

So then we can talk about what we have/had in terms of socialism and communism which has caused the deaths of tens of millions of people, no? Or does Derrida not allow that.
I wouldn't call any of the regimes to which you refer either socialist or communist; they're all masquerading as such, but I don't think Maoism and communism are as closely related as you would like them to be in order to make your point.

Derrida wasn't an economist; he was a philosopher. I can only speak about the ideas of the situation, but any system wherein inequality is necessary for the maintenance of normativity is, in my opinion, a bad system. Especially when you start drawing those lines as we have along divides of race, gender, nationality, etc.



It's not idealistic, it's inherent to how our economy functions. It's why the United States was able to use less materials per national unit of income than the Soviet Union in the 70's and 80's. It's why manufacturers in this country weren't burdened by an over abundance of materials and no way to move them, as they were in the Soviet Union.

Being better than the Soviet Union is a pretty piss-poor argument for the efficacy of capitalism.

[Simulcast]

I wouldn't call any of the regimes to which you refer either socialist or communist; they're all masquerading as such, but I don't think Maoism and communism are as closely related as you would like them to be in order to make your point.

Of course you wouldn't, and America is masquerading around as a capitalist country when it really isn't. I can play this game too. It's so easy to attack capitalism for it's faults, even when you admit that no country is purely capitalist. Although when the table is turned, suddenly no country was ever socialist or communist. Convenient.

Derrida wasn't an economist; he was a philosopher. I can only speak about the ideas of the situation, but any system wherein inequality is necessary for the maintenance of normativity is, in my opinion, a bad system. Especially when you start drawing those lines as we have along divides of race, gender, nationality, etc.

I know who Derrida was. Any system that ignores the realities of scarce resources is a bad system.

Being better than the Soviet Union is a pretty piss-poor argument for the efficacy of capitalism.

It's a great argument for the advantages of a capitalist economy over one with top-down control. It's also the only real-world example we have and since, as you pointed out, we can only analyze what we have I can argue for the efficacy of capitalism.

[The Personist]

Of course you wouldn't, and America is masquerading around as a capitalist country when it really isn't. I can play this game too. It's so easy to attack capitalism for it's faults, even when you admit that no country is purely capitalist. Although when the table is turned, suddenly no country was ever socialist or communist. Convenient.



I know who Derrida was. Any system that ignores the realities of scarce resources is a bad system.



It's a great argument for the advantages of a capitalist economy over one with top-down control. It's also the only real-world example we have and since, as you pointed out, we can only analyze real world situations I can argue for the efficacy of capitalism.

Pure capitalism sucks, too, not just the bastardized fucked up version we have. Why? Because it operates the same way I just said it does--through iniquity.

[loveisdead]

Talking about the tax bill was fun while it lasted. Back to this same argument that's been had a hundred times.

[The Personist]

Until he proves capitalism isn't founded on iniquity, I ain't bitin'.

[loveisdead]

Until he proves capitalism isn't founded on iniquity, I ain't bitin'.

He'll say socialism caused a ton of death and you'll say it wasn't true socialism and round and round we go.

[The Personist]

He'll say socialism caused a ton of death and you'll say it wasn't true socialism and round and round we go.

The bastardizations of socialism that have caused death are so much farther away from socialism (or rather, communism, to use Marx's term for the system I'm a fan of) than the capitalism we have now is from pure capitalism that it isn't possible to compare the two. :shrug:

[Simulcast]

Until he proves capitalism isn't founded on iniquity, I ain't bitin'.

Until you understand basic concepts of scarcity and resource allocation I suppose you can continue to stall until your resident Marxist shows up. No doubt you'll have a lot to say then.

[The Personist]

Until you understand basic concepts of scarcity and resource allocation I suppose you can continue to stall until your resident Marxist shows up. No doubt you'll have a lot to say then.

Nope. He will, but i won't. I agree with him, and I admit when I'm not well-read enough to continue the argument. However, you have yet to address the iniquities at the core of capitalism. Resources be damned--how do you defend a system that founds itself on the basis that some people necessarily must not be equal to other people?

[Simulcast]

Nope. He will, but i won't. I agree with him, and I admit when I'm not well-read enough to continue the argument. However, you have yet to address the iniquities at the core of capitalism. Resources be damned--how do you defend a system that founds itself on the basis that some people necessarily must not be equal to other people?

Because some people are willing to work a lot harder than others.

[The Personist]

Because some people are willing to work a lot harder than others.

SO white people are inherently less lazy than all other types of people, then?

[Simulcast]

SO white people are inherently less lazy than all other types of people, then?

No. You are speaking about the bastardization of capitalism. The core of capitalism is not that white people are inherently better or more productive.

[loveisdead]

Because some people are willing to work a lot harder than others.

Dude, this a terrible terrible argument.

Edit: at least as it applies to this country.

[caveBEAR]

:popcorn:

[The Personist]

No. You are speaking about the bastardization of capitalism. The core of capitalism is not that white people are inherently better or more productive.

Then tell me how it is morally acceptable to use a contingent and indeterminate notion such as "will" (which can't be quantified and, thus, is useless for your argument) to defend, morally, a system which asserts that some people are better than others.

[Simulcast]

Dude, this a terrible terrible argument.

Edit: at least as it applies to this country.

I'm not applying it to this country, I'm answering his question.

Then tell me how it is morally acceptable to use a contingent and indeterminate notion such as "will" (which can't be quantified and, thus, is useless for your argument) to defend, morally, a system which asserts that some people are better than others.

Will can be quantified when it is put into action. A person who wills to work hard, and does so, see the fruits of his labor more so than one who does not. A man who goes out and cuts down trees to build a home for his family is morally superior to the one who refuses to do the same for his family. I can defend it because it's hinged on reality. Some work harder than others. That is fact.

[The Personist]

I'm not applying it to this country, I'm answering his question.



Will can be quantified when it is put into action. A person who wills to work hard, and does so, see the fruits of his labor more so than one who does not. A man who goes out and cuts down trees to build a home for his family is morally superior to the one who refuses to do the same for his family. I can defend it because it's hinged on reality. Some work harder than others. That is fact.

What does labor have to do with will? Demonstrate a concrete correlation. Also, I don't believe your assertion holds and that the first man is morally superior to the second.

[Simulcast]

What does labor have to do with will? Demonstrate a concrete correlation. Also, I don't believe your assertion holds and that the first man is morally superior to the second.

What does labor have to do with core concepts of capitalism?

I know where you want to go with this, factory workers and so forth. I can only say that again, your contention is with a bastardization of capitalism. We are getting away from "core concepts" so that you can tell me how the 19th century factory worker had a terrible life and his will had no bearing on his situation. I could get into the morality of that if you like (Hint: I'm not rooting for the factory owner).

I don't know how you can hold the second man as equal. In fact, I'm curious to know how you can justify that.

[loveisdead]

What does labor have to do with core concepts of capitalism?

I know where you want to go with this, factory workers and so forth. I can only say that again, your contention is with a bastardization of capitalism. We are getting away from "core concepts" so that you can tell me how the 19th century factory worker had a terrible life and his will had no bearing on his situation. I could get into the morality of that if you like (Hint: I'm not rooting for the factory owner).

I don't know how you can hold the second man as equal. In fact, I'm curious to know how you can justify that.
People aren't equal?

[The Personist]

What does labor have to do with core concepts of capitalism?

I know where you want to go with this, factory workers and so forth. I can only say that again, your contention is with a bastardization of capitalism. We are getting away from "core concepts" so that you can tell me how the 19th century factory worker had a terrible life and his will had no bearing on his situation. I could get into the morality of that if you like (Hint: I'm not rooting for the factory owner).

I don't know how you can hold the second man as equal. In fact, I'm curious to know how you can justify that.

IF the second man is legless, then it makes sense he would refuse to go do something he is physically incapable of. But no, he's morally inferior.

Your situation is ONE among MANY in which one man cuts down a tree to build a house while another doesn't. "Refusal" as you use it is misleading; it presumes that both people are equally capable of doing the work. That's NEVER the case, and you know it, which is why you use such obfuscating language to push us into the world where--erroneously--it is presumed everyone has an equal footing.

EDIT: regardless of whether or not everyone has an equal playing field, do you not at least agree that everyone has a right to life, if nothing else? Because you're tending to argue down the road where you argue about the value of lives, and that would put you more in line with the fascists than with Adam Smith.

[Simulcast]

People aren't equal?

Not morally. I don't believe rapists are equal to you or I. Our entire system of justice is predicated on that fact.

[loveisdead]

Not morally. I don't believe rapists are equal to you or I. Our entire system of justice is predicated on that fact.

Why are we comparing people's morality in an economic debate?

[The Personist]

Not morally. I don't believe rapists are equal to you or I. Our entire system of justice is predicated on that fact.

So you believe there is an essential quality that makes a rapist an inferior human being, whose life is of less worth than your own? Or is it the rape act itself which is bad?

[The Personist]

Why are we comparing people's morality in an economic debate?

Oh, please let it continue; we're on my turf now.

[loveisdead]

Oh, please let it continue; we're on my turf now.

What kind of answer is that? Why can I only picture the last scene of west side story?

[The Personist]

What kind of answer is that? Why can I only picture the last scene of west side story?

hahaha well basically, the conversation is interesting and I betcha within the next few posts I can tie it back into the debate we were having if you give me a chance.

[Simulcast]

Oh, please let it continue; we're on my turf now.

That's fine. I'll not engage in a moral debate with a 22 year-old deconstructionist. It's futile.

I'll continue the economic portion of this later, in a thread where it is more appropriate.

[loveisdead]

hahaha well basically, the conversation is interesting and I betcha within the next few posts I can tie it back into the debate we were having if you give me a chance.

Sure. I'm just killing time at work.

[The Personist]

That's fine. I'll not engage in a moral debate with a 22 year-old deconstructionist. It's futile.

I'll continue the economic portion of this later, in a thread where it is more appropriate.

I'm glad you concede you're not well-equipped enough--or rather, you're not bold enough--to carry the violent implications of your argument to their conclusions. Because we would have to argue about identity and then you would have absolutely no ground to stand on.

[caveBEAR]

Not morally. I don't believe rapists are equal to you or I. Our entire system of justice is predicated on that fact.

You have no idea if Ryan's a rapist or not...

What kind of answer is that? Why can I only picture the last scene of west side story?

Please, oh please God, let there be synchronized snapping and dancing for the remainder of the discussion.

[loveisdead]

hahaha well basically, the conversation is interesting and I betcha within the next few posts I can tie it back into the debate we were having if you give me a chance.

Holy shit dude I thought it was simulcast who said the thing about turf. Sorry. I'm shot.

[Simulcast]

IF the second man is legless, then it makes sense he would refuse to go do something he is physically incapable of. But no, he's morally inferior.

Your situation is ONE among MANY in which one man cuts down a tree to build a house while another doesn't. "Refusal" as you use it is misleading; it presumes that both people are equally capable of doing the work. That's NEVER the case, and you know it, which is why you use such obfuscating language to push us into the world where--erroneously--it is presumed everyone has an equal footing.

EDIT: regardless of whether or not everyone has an equal playing field, do you not at least agree that everyone has a right to life, if nothing else? Because you're tending to argue down the road where you argue about the value of lives, and that would put you more in line with the fascists than with Adam Smith.


Yes. I would never argue that some people deserve life more than others, especially not in the way fascists do. I'm saying a man who works hard is rewarded, and one who doesn't isn't.

[Simulcast]

Holy shit dude I thought it was simulcast who said the thing about turf. Sorry. I'm shot.

I see now how you really think of me. That's fine.

[The Personist]

Yes. I would never argue that some people deserve life more than others, especially not in the way fascists do. I'm saying a man who works hard is rewarded, and one who doesn't isn't.

So you would say it's the rape act, not the person, that is bad?

[Simulcast]

I'm glad you concede you're not well-equipped enough--or rather, you're not bold enough--to carry the violent implications of your argument to their conclusions. Because we would have to argue about identity and then you would have absolutely no ground to stand on.

I'm glad you feel better about yourself. I was worried for a second you'd fall apart before the resident Marxist arrived.

[Simulcast]

So you would say it's the rape act, not the person, that is bad?

I'm saying a person who rapes other people is bad.

[loveisdead]

I see now how you really think of me. That's fine.

No no no I clarified how I felt about you a few pages back. I just meant that wouldve been a dumb answer from you and I was confused. Wasn't meant to be anything else. Again, I like you and you and I have discussed that before.

[Simulcast]

No no no I clarified how I felt about you a few pages back. I just meant that wouldve been a dumb answer from you and I was confused. Wasn't meant to be anything else. Again, I like you and you and I have discussed that before.

Okay.

[loveisdead]

Okay.

I'll PM you in a bit. I have to drive home from work.

[The Personist]

I'm saying a person who rapes other people is bad.

Answer the question. Is the rapist bad, or is the act of rape what is bad? This is not an answer, and I suspect you can't answer the question without contradicting your previous assertion that every person deserves life, because you think rape is bad and if it's an essential characteristic of a person (they are "a rapist" rather than "a person who has committed rape") rather than one among many attributes which constitutes a self, then that would explain why you don't want to talk morality with me. Morality is indeterminate, I contend, because the question is whether a person is bad or whether an action is bad. We can't universally argue that an action is bad (Cf. Spivak when she discusses widow-burning, though I don't trust you to look that up) and we have to consider why we think actions in certain contexts are bad. You are more interested in right v. wrong, not the process of critical thinking. No wonder Marxism doesn't appeal to you.

[Simulcast]

Answer the question. Is the rapist bad, or is the act of rape what is bad? This is not an answer, and I suspect you can't answer the question without contradicting your previous assertion that every person deserves life, because you think rape is bad and if it's an essential characteristic of a person (they are "a rapist" rather than "a person who has committed rape") rather than one among many attributes which constitutes a self, then that would explain why you don't want to talk morality with me. Morality is indeterminate, I contend, because the question is whether a person is bad or whether an action is bad. We can't universally argue that an action is bad (Cf. Spivak when she discusses widow-burning, though I don't trust you to look that up) and we have to consider why we think actions in certain contexts are bad. You are more interested in right v. wrong, not the process of critical thinking. No wonder Marxism doesn't appeal to you.

I do not think "rape" is an essential characteristic of someone. I think it is a bad act, which is the manifest of an ill within man.

What does this have to with scarcity or resource allocation? I don't want to get into this with you because it won't tell me why socialism has a better approach concerning the scarcity of resources or is more effective in resource allocation. I do not agree with that tenet of Marxism that claims the state, the community, or the general public knows best. That was my point from the beginning. I took issue with you because of this:

I think it's ludicrous to point fingers at places where alleged "socialist" governments are causing problems when we ourselves are blind to our own shortcomings and the destructive power of all the systems we more or less tacitly accept under a liberal democracy and capitalist system.

Because there are only alleged socialist governments versus absolute liberal democracies and capitalist economies.

[Scrandon]

And yet now you would agree that tax cuts are necessary, coupled with a reduction in spending. He wasn't elected to push through health care and to enact trillions of dollars of spending. This is why the Dems lost 60+ seats this last election. Part of that can be blamed on the economy, but you can't possibly believe all 60 seats were lost because of that.
He has been a much more moderate version of the person who campaigned for office. He ran on a platform that included healthcare and social programs. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean he wasn't elected to do it.

[Scrandon]

Equality is not part of capitalism nature.
Fixed?
People aren't equal?
You guys believe that human beings are equal in a natural state? I don't think so. While I would agree that our society has magnified existing inequalities and further created additional inequalities, I just couldn't say that I think every person is equally capable in every any given measure.

I think looking to the animal kingdom provides great insight to the subject. We wouldn't dare say that the members of any given species are naturally as unequal as we pretend humans to be. On the other hand, we recognize that there are natural advantages that some members of a species have over the other members (basic assumption of the Theory of Evolution). I don't see any reason to assume humans are any different than any other animal from this perspective.

This is basically the argument outlined in Rousseau's Discoure on Inequality, which I find quite convincing. Criticisms? I would be very curious to hear a counter-argument, it won't be a waste of time.

[GeeBee]

The people with two trillion dollars created the entities which employ the middle class. What would you do if they didn't exist?
Small businesses employ the bulk of the middle class. The two trillion largely belongs to huge financial institutions and corporations.

[Simulcast]

Small businesses employ the bulk of the middle class. The two trillion largely belongs to huge financial institutions and corporations.

Fair.

Though lets also establish that a large majority of small businesses see revenue well over $250,000 a year.

[Simulcast]

Fixed?

You guys believe that human beings are equal in a natural state? I don't think so. While I would agree that our society has magnified existing inequalities and further created additional inequalities, I just couldn't say that I think every person is equally capable in every any given measure.

I think looking to the animal kingdom provides great insight to the subject. We wouldn't dare say that the members of any given species are naturally as unequal as we pretend humans to be. On the other hand, we recognize that there are natural advantages that some members of a species have over the other members (basic assumption of the Theory of Evolution). I don't see any reason to assume humans are any different than any other animal from this perspective.

This is basically the argument outlined in Rousseau's Discoure on Inequality, which I find quite convincing. Criticisms? I would be very curious to hear a counter-argument, it won't be a waste of time.

Thank you for saying what I apparently could not.

[loveisdead]

Fixed?

You guys believe that human beings are equal in a natural state? I don't think so. While I would agree that our society has magnified existing inequalities and further created additional inequalities, I just couldn't say that I think every person is equally capable in every any given measure.

I think looking to the animal kingdom provides great insight to the subject. We wouldn't dare say that the members of any given species are naturally as unequal as we pretend humans to be. On the other hand, we recognize that there are natural advantages that some members of a species have over the other members (basic assumption of the Theory of Evolution). I don't see any reason to assume humans are any different than any other animal from this perspective.

This is basically the argument outlined in Rousseau's Discoure on Inequality, which I find quite convincing. Criticisms? I would be very curious to hear a counter-argument, it won't be a waste of time.

I'll let Dave take the brunt of this cause he's way better suited than I am to tackle the issue. But I think comparing 21st century society to the animal kingdom is a problem right off the bat.

[Jason Tate]

The Tax Compromise is a thing of pages past at this point.

[GeeBee]

Fair.

Though lets also establish that a large majority of small businesses see revenue well over $250,000 a year.
No argument there. That's why I thought Schumer's idea was better. A million is a nice round number that no one can dispute is enough to live more than comfortably on.

[loveisdead]

The Tax Compromise is a thing of pages past at this point.

Unfortunately. I thought we were having a good discussion about it. These types of things tend to always get hijacked into capitalism vs. socialism debates.

[GeeBee]

Unfortunately. I thought we were having a good discussion about it. These types of things tend to always get hijacked into capitalism vs. socialism debates.

If they further devolved into god vs. no god, that would be awesome. ;-)

[Simulcast]

No argument there. That's why I thought Schumer's idea was better. A million is a nice round number that no one can dispute is enough to live more than comfortably on.

I suppose this is why Jason is calling for more brackets. Makes sense in a what-I-want-will-never-happen-so-let's-make-the-best-of-what's-here way.

[Jason Tate]

Small businesses employ the bulk of the middle class. The two trillion largely belongs to huge financial institutions and corporations.
Has anyone looked at the stat of what % of small business owners make over 250 a year?

Edit: Just looked it up. $233,600 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zdnet.com%2Fbl og%2Fitfacts%2Faverage-small-business-owner-salary-is-233600%2F11901&rct=j&q=average%20small%20business%20owne r%20income&ei=FPYITdL4I4rAsAPB0_3rDg&usg=AFQjCNEwhUymKD2QhhHY5CUy6t2n0xk 8FQ&sig2=ZnzZhLBVR0uN7LL-LAQH4A&cad=rja) is the number I found from 2006 as the average income. Probably safe to say a good percentage of the people employing "the bulk of the middle class" are in that category. Which is why until we can get some stability in the economy, I'm not a huge proponent of tax increases.

[GeeBee]

Fixed?

You guys believe that human beings are equal in a natural state? I don't think so. While I would agree that our society has magnified existing inequalities and further created additional inequalities, I just couldn't say that I think every person is equally capable in every any given measure.

I think looking to the animal kingdom provides great insight to the subject. We wouldn't dare say that the members of any given species are naturally as unequal as we pretend humans to be. On the other hand, we recognize that there are natural advantages that some members of a species have over the other members (basic assumption of the Theory of Evolution). I don't see any reason to assume humans are any different than any other animal from this perspective.

This is basically the argument outlined in Rousseau's Discoure on Inequality, which I find quite convincing. Criticisms? I would be very curious to hear a counter-argument, it won't be a waste of time.
I find this post reasonable, however, many conservatives that would agree with your overall point would on any other day shout "SOCIAL DARWINISM!!!" in protest against it.

[Jason Tate]

No argument there. That's why I thought Schumer's idea was better. A million is a nice round number that no one can dispute is enough to live more than comfortably on.
The problem with it is that it's basically only a political stance. It's not a good source of revenue; after all, if you made $1,100,000, you were getting a tax cut on 91 percent of your income.

[GeeBee]

Has anyone looked at the stat of what % of small business owners make over 250 a year?

Edit: Just looked it up. $233,600 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zdnet.com%2Fbl og%2Fitfacts%2Faverage-small-business-owner-salary-is-233600%2F11901&rct=j&q=average%20small%20business%20owne r%20income&ei=FPYITdL4I4rAsAPB0_3rDg&usg=AFQjCNEwhUymKD2QhhHY5CUy6t2n0xk 8FQ&sig2=ZnzZhLBVR0uN7LL-LAQH4A&cad=rja) is the number I found from 2006. Probably safe to say a good percentage of the people employing "the bulk of the middle class" are in that category. Which is why until we can get some stability in the economy, I'm not a huge proponent of tax increases.
Most economists I've read agree that the deficit is a long-term problem that isn't as urgent right now as boosting the economy. Also, few people address the psychological effect of a raise in ANY taxes, regardless of who they effect. I'd imagine it inspires far more confidence in the economy to just have a blanket "no increases for anyone".

[GeeBee]

The problem with it is that it's basically only a political stance. It's not a good source of revenue; after all, if you made $1,100,000, you were getting a tax cut on 91 percent of your income.
True, it's no doubt a more political than pragmatic stance, but I think it would have gained a little more traction.
What are your thoughts on a "progressive" VAT?

[Jason Tate]

I suppose this is why Jason is calling for more brackets. Makes sense in a what-I-want-will-never-happen-so-let's-make-the-best-of-what's-here way.
I think that just makes the most sense from a practical stand-point.

And although the changes would be on an extremely small number of people - I could see there being a problem trying to get it done. However, I'd be interested to see the numbers for a scale up to like a 43% tax on the highest of high incomes, and maybe even a progressive capital gains tax as well. What kind of revenue it could generate, the # of people it would impact, etc.

[Jason Tate]

True, it's no doubt a more political than pragmatic stance, but I think it would have gained a little more traction.
What are your thoughts on a "progressive" VAT?
How are they done progressively? I always thought VATs were regressive? I think, in theory, it's worth exploring with other changes. Not just adding it alone. I've also been spending a lot of time reading about a Pigovian tax. Which I need to spend more time on.

[GeeBee]

How are they done progressively? I always thought VATs were regressive? I think, in theory, it's worth exploring with other changes. Not just adding it alone. I've also been spending a lot of time reading about a Pigovian tax. Which I need to spend more time on.
I think the bulk of conversation on VAT is on how to make it more progressive (i.e. small tax on essentials like food, huge tax on something like a luxury car).
The problem with the VAT (and the Pigovian, as I understand it), will the the same problem we have now...dealing with the arbitrary nature of determining who fits where and pays what.

[Jason Tate]

Most economists I've read agree that the deficit is a long-term problem that isn't as urgent right now as boosting the economy. Also, few people address the psychological effect of a raise in ANY taxes, regardless of who they effect. I'd imagine it inspires far more confidence in the economy to just have a blanket "no increases for anyone".
This is what I've read at the moment as well.

At some point we're going to have to start acting as if the economy IS better though ... improvement in industrial production and manufacturing and tame US inflation numbers looked really good today.

Now, from a marketing angle it's interesting that the tax plan is being referred to by many as the Bush Era Tax Cuts. Because it means Obama isn't going to get credit for (still in my opinion) a decent deal for the next 2 years.

[loveisdead]

Most economists I've read agree that the deficit is a long-term problem that isn't as urgent right now as boosting the economy. Also, few people address the psychological effect of a raise in ANY taxes, regardless of who they effect. I'd imagine it inspires far more confidence in the economy to just have a blanket "no increases for anyone".

These are very good points.

[GeeBee]

This is what I've read at the moment as well.

At some point we're going to have to start acting as if the economy IS better though ... improvement in industrial production and manufacturing and tame US inflation numbers looked really good today.

Now, from a marketing angle it's interesting that the tax plan is being referred to by many as the Bush Era Tax Cuts. Because it means Obama isn't going to get credit for (still in my opinion) a decent deal for the next 2 years.
I'd agree. He got a pretty decent short-term stimulus plan, but won't enjoy any credit for it. It's another bad case of the GOP controlling the narrative, even when they don't necessarily win.

Another plus side of the VAT...it would curb the ability of companies to pass their tax burden on to their customers.

[Jason Tate]

Klein just posted a new article (http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=5afb5eb9c93f6caa185626 51d34e3dcf) on the estate tax (which appears to play a big part in the tax plan passing or not):

The estate tax is going to dominate the final arguments over the tax deal, so it's worth quickly running through what it is and how much the various plans will cost us. The basic insight behind the estate tax is that wealth concentration is a problem. That was true in 1916, when the tax was enacted, and it's true today, when it's being neutered. As Ray Madoff explains (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/opinion/15madoff.html?_r=1), the going theory came from Louis Brandeis, who said, “We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy, but we can’t have both.” Andrew Carnegie himself testified in favor the estate tax's creation.

This is something I'm still extremely conflicted on - and this is a good argument/introduction to it.

[Jason Tate]

I'd agree. He got a pretty decent short-term stimulus plan, but won't enjoy any credit for it. It's another bad case of the GOP controlling the narrative, even when they don't necessarily win.

Another plus side of the VAT...it would curb the ability of companies to pass their tax burden on to their customers.
I need to spend more time reading up on VAT.

[Jason Tate]

And because I'm reading my political blogs now, there's some good stuff to share.

The deficit hawks (http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=780f625a203dfb2968a652 faf2273de3), however, often get blamed for the actions and rhetoric of the deficit frauds. The deficit frauds are the folks who use deficits for short-term political gain: This year, they've mainly been Republicans who opposed unemployment benefits because they'd add $56 billion to the deficit but demanded tax cuts that would add $4 trillion to the deficit. And they've been empowered not by Peterson's money or even the climate in Washington, but by the fact that people get very anxious about the deficit when the economy slows, as it's a number that they think helps explain the economic problems even as it mainly tracks them, and because a misplaced analogy to the European debt crises has made our deficit look scarier than it actually is.

This is what I was saying earlier in this thread. The deficit cries have all rung so fucking hollow.

[GeeBee]

Klein just posted a new article (http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=5afb5eb9c93f6caa185626 51d34e3dcf) on the estate tax (which appears to play a big part in the tax plan passing or not):

The estate tax is going to dominate the final arguments over the tax deal, so it's worth quickly running through what it is and how much the various plans will cost us. The basic insight behind the estate tax is that wealth concentration is a problem. That was true in 1916, when the tax was enacted, and it's true today, when it's being neutered. As Ray Madoff explains (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/opinion/15madoff.html?_r=1), the going theory came from Louis Brandeis, who said, “We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy, but we can’t have both.” Andrew Carnegie himself testified in favor the estate tax's creation.

This is something I'm still extremely conflicted on - and this is a good argument/introduction to it.
Sounds like Andrew Carnegie was the Warren Buffett of his day...

[Jason Tate]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/12/5245507139_8340886086-thumb-454x302-31077.jpg

Obama still exudes "cool".

[Jason Tate]

DeMint wants to read the entire START treaty on the floor to kill time. Douche.

[GeeBee]

DeMint wants to read the entire START treaty on the floor to kill time. Douche.
Someone needs to point out to him and the other GOP'ers who harp on "what the American people want" that more than anything, they want an end to stunts like this.

[loveisdead]

DeMint wants to read the entire START treaty on the floor to kill time. Douche.

What an asshole. It'll look like shit compared to what Bernie pulled off the other day.

[Jason Tate]

The financial industry is fueling inequality, writes (http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=907) Tyler Cowen: "Steven N. Kaplan and Joshua Rauh have recently provided a detailed estimation of particular American incomes.6 Their data do not comprise the entire U.S. population, but from partial financial records they find a very strong role for the financial sector in driving the trend toward income concentration at the top. For instance, for 2004, nonfinancial executives of publicly traded companies accounted for less than 6 percent of the top 0.01 percent income bracket. In that same year, the top 25 hedge fund managers combined appear to have earned more than all of the CEOs from the entire S&P 500... In normal years the financial sector is flush with cash and high earnings. In implosion years a lot of the losses are borne by other sectors of society."

I shoulda been a hedge fund manager.

[loveisdead]

The financial industry is fueling inequality, writes (http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=907) Tyler Cowen: "Steven N. Kaplan and Joshua Rauh have recently provided a detailed estimation of particular American incomes.6 Their data do not comprise the entire U.S. population, but from partial financial records they find a very strong role for the financial sector in driving the trend toward income concentration at the top. For instance, for 2004, nonfinancial executives of publicly traded companies accounted for less than 6 percent of the top 0.01 percent income bracket. In that same year, the top 25 hedge fund managers combined appear to have earned more than all of the CEOs from the entire S&P 500... In normal years the financial sector is flush with cash and high earnings. In implosion years a lot of the losses are borne by other sectors of society."

I shoulda been a hedge fund manager.

Nah. I'd likely hate you then.

[Jason Tate]

Nah. I'd likely hate you then.
But I could buy your love.

[Simulcast]

I think that just makes the most sense from a practical stand-point.

And although the changes would be on an extremely small number of people - I could see there being a problem trying to get it done. However, I'd be interested to see the numbers for a scale up to like a 43% tax on the highest of high incomes, and maybe even a progressive capital gains tax as well. What kind of revenue it could generate, the # of people it would impact, etc.

I still maintain that lowering taxes on those considered extremely wealthy generates more revenue than taxing them at a higher rate, because it encourages them to pull their money out of tax-exempt securities and invest in the economy - in order to make more money. Empirically, this is evident in the tax cuts of 1925 pushed by Andrew Mellon. In 1924, prior to these cuts, only 75 people claimed an annual income of more than 1 million dollars a year. After the tax cuts in 1925, 207 people claimed a 1 million+ annual income. The revenue from capital gains doubled because of this. Conversely in 1916, 205 people claimed that level of income. After taxes were increased in 1917 that number fell dramatically to a low of 21 in 1921.

Source (http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/income/issue/2465/download/33313/income_1925.pdf) (page 21)

[loveisdead]

But I could buy your love.

Well played haha.

[GeeBee]

I still maintain that lowering taxes on those considered extremely wealthy generates more revenue than taxing them at a higher rate, because it encourages them to pull their money out of tax-exempt securities and invest in the economy - in order to make more money. Empirically, this is evident in the tax cuts of 1925 pushed by Andrew Mellon. In 1924, prior to these cuts, only 75 people claimed an annual income of more than 1 million dollars a year. After the tax cuts in 1925, 207 people claimed a 1 million+ annual income. The revenue from capital gains doubled because of this. Conversely in 1916, 205 people claimed that level of income. After taxes were increased in 1917 that number fell dramatically to a low of 21 in 1921.

Source (http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/income/issue/2465/download/33313/income_1925.pdf) (page 21)

Too bad it's post-industrial revolution. I'm not seeing any hard, current numbers that back up the theory that tax-cuts for the wealthy creates a substantial number of jobs.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1427

[Jason Tate]

I still maintain that lowering taxes on those considered extremely wealthy generates more revenue than taxing them at a higher rate, because it encourages them to pull their money out of tax-exempt securities and invest in the economy - in order to make more money. Empirically, this is evident in the tax cuts of 1925 pushed by Andrew Mellon. In 1924, prior to these cuts, only 75 people claimed an annual income of more than 1 million dollars a year. After the tax cuts in 1925, 207 people claimed a 1 million+ annual income. The revenue from capital gains doubled because of this. Conversely in 1916, 205 people claimed that level of income. After taxes were increased in 1917 that number fell dramatically to a low of 21 in 1921.

Source (http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/income/issue/2465/download/33313/income_1925.pdf) (page 21)
Recent history seems to run counter. However, as Princeton professor Uwe E. Reinhardt points out in the New York Times, business investment actually rose (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/does-the-democrats-stimulus-package-make-economic-sense/) following President Clinton’s tax increases and fell following the Reagan and Bush tax cuts (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/does-the-democrats-stimulus-package-make-economic-sense/).

[AgainstTheCurrent]

I understand that in order for Obama to be an appropriate representative for this country that he has to at least try to appease both people that identify with the left and the right, and I've cut him some slack with that in consideration... but at this point I feel like he's been watered down SO much by conservatives.. I feel like he's not even a leader anymore.

[GeeBee]

Trickle-down is still trickle-down, regardless of what you call it. And it's the biggest failed experiment of the last 3 decades.

[GeeBee]

I understand that in order for Obama to be an appropriate representative for this country that he has to at least try to appease both people that identify with the left and the right, and I've cut him some slack with that in consideration... but at this point I feel like he's been watered down SO much by conservatives.. I feel like he's not even a leader anymore.
I'll bet a dollar that his compromise solidifies his image as a leader with many independents. The ability to reach compromise is valued by most people over their own ideological purity tests.

[Jason Tate]

I don't even know what that means.

He's not even a leader anymore?

[Jason Tate]

Trickle-down is still trickle-down, regardless of what you call it. And it's the biggest failed experiment of the last 3 decades.
And there's more than enough evidence to put the nail in that coffin.

[loveisdead]

I still maintain that lowering taxes on those considered extremely wealthy generates more revenue than taxing them at a higher rate, because it encourages them to pull their money out of tax-exempt securities and invest in the economy - in order to make more money. Empirically, this is evident in the tax cuts of 1925 pushed by Andrew Mellon. In 1924, prior to these cuts, only 75 people claimed an annual income of more than 1 million dollars a year. After the tax cuts in 1925, 207 people claimed a 1 million+ annual income. The revenue from capital gains doubled because of this. Conversely in 1916, 205 people claimed that level of income. After taxes were increased in 1917 that number fell dramatically to a low of 21 in 1921.

Source (http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/income/issue/2465/download/33313/income_1925.pdf) (page 21)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a few years ago (2007 maybe) when we saw the largest income inequality since the 20s?

[GeeBee]

I don't even know what that means.

He's not even a leader anymore?
I feel like you're not even the CEO of AP.net anymore...

[Jason Tate]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a few years ago (2007 maybe) when we saw the largest income inequality since the 20s?
This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html?_r=1) is full of juicy tidbits:

The same pattern has been observed in cross-national data. For example, using data from the World Bank (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/world_bank/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for a sample of 65 industrial nations, the economists Alberto Alesina and Dani Rodrick found lower growth rates in countries where higher shares of national income went to the top 5 percent and the top 20 percent of earners. In contrast, larger shares for poor and middle-income groups were associated with higher growth rates. Again and again, the observed pattern is the opposite of the one predicted by trickle-down theory.

[Jason Tate]

I feel like you're not even the CEO of AP.net anymore...
Is it because I compromised and put some hip-hop on the website?

[GeeBee]

Is it because I compromised and put some hip-hop on the website?
:-d Yes.

[Simulcast]

Is it because I compromised and put some hip-hop on the website?

Maybe you should stop ignoring the professional pop-punk base.

[loveisdead]

This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html?_r=1) is full of juicy tidbits:

The same pattern has been observed in cross-national data. For example, using data from the World Bank (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/world_bank/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for a sample of 65 industrial nations, the economists Alberto Alesina and Dani Rodrick found lower growth rates in countries where higher shares of national income went to the top 5 percent and the top 20 percent of earners. In contrast, larger shares for poor and middle-income groups were associated with higher growth rates. Again and again, the observed pattern is the opposite of the one predicted by trickle-down theory.


Perhaps I'm being redundant (ok I know I am) but it's a new day so whatever. If we can agree that trickle-down economics isn't a good thing, why support the bill in its current form? The negatives I see to raising taxes on the rich are the stock market taking a hit and Obama's approval ratings taking a hit.