View Full Version : How do you raise taxes
How do you raise taxes without raising taxes?
Rush seems to think the R's will allow the President to raise (they will raise) the tax rate on the "evil rich" - just who qualifies as "evil rich" is TBD. Nobody cares what tax rate the "evil rich" pay - but most everybody agrees it ain't enough.
But that ain't near enough to raise the large chunks of money required.
So looks to be tinkering with deductions and massaging the AMT to trap more people.
So the average Joe trapped by the AMT ain't going to find out until April 2014.
So with the infusion of extra cash through early 2014 things will look real rosey for the Feds and politicians can spend more - but we're in the hole again for later in 2014.
The Government "I'll tax you today for cuts I'll make next month."
I highly recommend Bruce Bartlett's "The Benefit and the Burden" for undertanding the tax process. I am going to have to read it twice to grasp everything. The author was Jack Kemp's advisor on tax policy and an economic advisor to Reagan. He has what seems to me as sensible ideas. He is also one of the former Reagan advisors who maintain Reagan could not gain the GOP nomination today. As he has stated in interviews, everyone remembers Reagan cut taxes. every one also forgets he raised them 5 times. Unlike todays GOP, Reagan and George H W Bush hated deficits. I am sure most every one remembers David Stockman's famous comment concerning supply side and trickle down--and Reagan refused to fire him for it. The one line in the book that will always stick in my mind is, "when did it become cool to not pay your fair share of taxes?" Bartlett maintains we will never get out of our fiscal difficulties until somebody does something about Grover Norquist. Stockman has stated within the past year or so that anyone who can read a spreadsheet should know we don't just have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem as well.
,........."when did it become cool to not pay your fair share of taxes?" ....................
But that's the rub - nobody agrees on what the "fair share" should be.
The % of people putting money in during the year and then the government keeping at least some of it is getting smaller and smaller (EITC, etc). The EITC forks sure ain't paying "their fair share".
I sure as hell can't answer it. The link below does a fairly good job of discussing who pays what. We often forget that income tax is only one of many taxes we pay. I am trying to find an article i read a few years ago comparing total taxes (of all types) paid as a % of earnings by the top 1% verse the the total percent paid by the lowest 20% or so. It was remarkably close--maybe a 2 point spread. I'll post it if I can find it.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
But that's the rub - nobody agrees on what the "fair share" should be.
The % of people putting money in during the year and then the government keeping at least some of it is getting smaller and smaller (EITC, etc). The EITC forks sure ain't paying "their fair share".
That's because the progressive tax system isn't about revenue. It's about power and control. If it were truly about funding the government, we would have a fair tax or flat tax system.
Dozer523
11-19-2012, 08:58
I sure as hell can't answer it. . . .
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
Probably, no one can. Because the answer has more to do with how the question is framed and the answer desired. But that is a very interesting article. This is an "ought a read" if you want to stay in the conversation.
craigepo
11-19-2012, 09:19
"Fair share" is defined by the people who win elections, period. Obama often talked about the rich paying "their fair share" during the campaign. Can anyone remember him defining the term? Hell no. But he won. So here fairly quickly, we are going to see the democrat definition of "fair share". Expect it to except out a large proportion of the democrat voting base. And since the democrats won, their proposal will be what prevails.
Remember that this country does stuff by vote. Guilt or innocence is determined by the vote of a jury. The Country's policies and directions are decided by the people directly electing governmental representatives, who then make the decisions (or fail to make decisions by never uttering the word "NO", but that is a different topic).
The American people are going to get the government they deserve for the next four years.
Based upon our current system a flat tax would be better and the Fair tax would be best. IMO of course.
At the Fed Level: Optimally IMO, taxes should primarily be levied by the states and not the Fed. So a drastically scaled down Fed would need a 4-6% income tax rate with zero deductions and the balance gained from customs and tariffs. Instead of taking from all and doling out to whom ever, that would fall back to the State.
Transition the current Social Security to a minimally required personal IRA/401k with insurance program. Including a required disability insurance program. Transition Medicare to a personal medical account so people can purchase their own minimally required catastrophic policy, optional medical/dental/etc. policy, and minimally required long-term policy (70 and older). States would cover/ignore those that fall between the cracks.
No corporate or capital gains taxes, revoke all corporate tax breaks, stronger anti-monopoly protections, for US owned/located corporations (and US earned income).
Indexed-rate estate taxes with scaled rates at $1, $10, and $50 million.
At the State level: All taxes at a rate decided upon by the voters of the State. What ever they decide: income, property, sales, sin etc. taxes the State would decide.
The main point is that the Feds get enough to do what they are required to do and everything else is up to the States. The voters have greater control at the State level and those taxes (and spending) will greater reflect their desires. This gives voters a greater option to vote with their feet.
:munchin
I sure as hell can't answer it. The link below does a fairly good job of discussing who pays what. We often forget that income tax is only one of many taxes we pay. I am trying to find an article i read a few years ago comparing total taxes (of all types) paid as a % of earnings by the top 1% verse the the total percent paid by the lowest 20% or so. It was remarkably close--maybe a 2 point spread. I'll post it if I can find it.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
That article muddies the waters by mixing taxes.
The Holy Grail of the libs is to remove payroll taxes on the low enders.
SS Tax is an example. The top end tax rate is caped - because the return is caped. If the cap on what has to be paid is removed and the "wealthy" have to pay SS Tax on every thing they earn they are not going to get a proportional return on the amount.
The non-federal payroll taxes are "fair" because they are a fixed rate on what you earn.
Property taxes are "fair" because they are a fixed rate on what you own.
Sales taxes are "fair" because they are a fixed rate on what you purchase.
1stindoor
11-19-2012, 12:02
The American people are going to get the government they deserve for the next four years.
Yes they are...but so are the ones that didn't want the government they were given.
Yes they are...but so are the ones that didn't want the government they were given.
So that is "fair" - everybody gets the same government.
1stindoor
11-19-2012, 12:11
So that is "fair" - everybody gets the same government.
Now I didn't anything about "fair." I just said we're getting the same government whether we wanted them or not.
Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.
That's Judge Learned Hand.
Taxes are not voluntary contributions by the American people. Taxes are forced extractions because if they are not paid, men with guns will come to your door and take it away from you.
So whether the Congress takes money and uses it for National Public Radio, or to pay for cell phones for "poor people," to give one billion dollars to "victims" of the 911 terrorist attack, or use it to "forgive" college loans, the reality is that men with guns are coming to your house and will take away your money and give it to other people that the Congress thinks deserve it more than you.
That -- in my opinion -- is the true test of the legitamacy of any tax; I call it the "men with guns" test:
Is the government justified in sendng men with guns to your house to take away your money so that money can be spent in ways that you may totally disagree with.
The Reaper
11-19-2012, 17:27
I highly recommend Bruce Bartlett's "The Benefit and the Burden" for undertanding the tax process. I am going to have to read it twice to grasp everything. The author was Jack Kemp's advisor on tax policy and an economic advisor to Reagan. He has what seems to me as sensible ideas. He is also one of the former Reagan advisors who maintain Reagan could not gain the GOP nomination today. As he has stated in interviews, everyone remembers Reagan cut taxes. every one also forgets he raised them 5 times. Unlike todays GOP, Reagan and George H W Bush hated deficits. I am sure most every one remembers David Stockman's famous comment concerning supply side and trickle down--and Reagan refused to fire him for it. The one line in the book that will always stick in my mind is, "when did it become cool to not pay your fair share of taxes?" Bartlett maintains we will never get out of our fiscal difficulties until somebody does something about Grover Norquist. Stockman has stated within the past year or so that anyone who can read a spreadsheet should know we don't just have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem as well.
I would maintain that if the Federal government limited itself to its Constitutional responsibilities, we would have more than enough revenue right now.
The real problem is the ever increasing encroachment of the Federal government into areas where they have no mandate, and creating unnecessary entitlements.
TR
GratefulCitizen
11-19-2012, 17:36
Taxes (with a fiat currency) aren't the true tax burden.
Spending is.
Here's a hypothetical to explain it:
The federal deficit has been running about $1 trillion.
Suppose, by some miracle, the federal budget got reduced next year down to $1 trillion total.
Suppose, also, that the federal government collected $0 in taxes next year.
The deficit would still be $1 trillion, but nobody would pay taxes.
Would this mean there is no tax burden?
There would still be a burden of $1 trillion.
All of those goods and services "bought" by the government were, in fact, confiscated by fiat.
Taxes aren't what matters.
Spending, as a percentage of the economy, is what matters.
<edit>
Concerning the unintended consequences of taxes and subsidies:
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-federal-largesse-traps-poor.html
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes."
Judge Learned Hand, Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934)
"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant."
Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947) - dissenting opinion
This isn’t the first time our nation has had this discussion. But for many of our younger generation, this is the first time they have been asked to consider the question. Most of us become more fiscally conservative and socially moderate as we age. We accumulate wealth and see that life is more complicated than it seemed long ago.
Since we have no choice but to live with these election results for the remainder of this term, let's hope our electorate "matures" quickly.
How do you raise taxes without raising taxes?
Simple: inflation. Bernanke was given a green light well before the election.
Not only does government get to spend the money it creates, but as the currency inflates, people automatically move into higher tax brackets. Those considered middle class today will be considered "rich" a few years from now.
Badger52
11-20-2012, 18:47
I would maintain that if the Federal government limited itself to its Constitutional responsibilities, we would have more than enough revenue right now.
The real problem is the ever increasing encroachment of the Federal government into areas where they have no mandate, and creating unnecessary entitlements.
TRAs the kids would say: Word.
craigepo
11-21-2012, 10:24
I thought this article was an interesting take on how the Obama administration was not even doing Keynesian economics correctly.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2012/11/20/obama-the-worst-keynesian-ever/
Dozer523
11-21-2012, 10:36
I thought this article was an interesting take on how the Obama administration was not even doing Keynesian economics correctly.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2012/11/20/obama-the-worst-keynesian-ever/
That is a great article. I had some idea that things were bad in 1932 (my parents were kids then) but I had no idea that FDR made them worse the next year.
Badger52
11-21-2012, 19:21
That is a great article. I had some idea that things were bad in 1932 (my parents were kids then) but I had no idea that FDR made them worse the next year.Ditto here, Mom born to West Texas cotton farmers in '23. Some high-brows say "you are who you are when you were 10 years old." Well, that was '33 and I think when she passed she still had the first nickel she earned & she started young. She was banished off to California (and her embracing of Republican thought) because she wasn't too quiet about askin' why poor cotton farmers were still poor "after all this many years of FDR." Her brothers came around after WW-II when they began to run their own real businesses, in real life.
http://mises.org/document/3429/The-Roosevelt-Myth
If you have an ePub reader on board or in your browser, that download is a nice morsel (compared to the .pdf) and it's nicely linked inside, index & all. Heresy to some, but quite the read. Having eclipsed "the worst" title from Carter, current POTUS is trending to take the whole show.
Trapper John
11-24-2012, 16:23
That's because the progressive tax system isn't about revenue. It's about power and control. If it were truly about funding the government, we would have a fair tax or flat tax system.
You are on point sinjefe and have the target painted :D If you haven't already, read the links in JSMosby's thread (Looters war on wealth) in this forum. This is a sobering must read.
In my view the the tax code is the heavy artillery used for social engineering by the egalitarian liberals to destroy exceptionalism and foster permanent political power.
Things may look very grim, but these are the kind of fights we live for. We may have lost a battle, but the war is far from over. (See my posts in that same thread).
Keep on humpin'...the only easy day was yesterday. {Salute}
This video describes the real problem in basic terms.
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EW5IdwltaAc?rel=0
Even has the answer. Pain, everyone is going to feel it.
XngZeRubicon
11-29-2012, 18:18
I highly recommend Bruce Bartlett's "The Benefit and the Burden" for undertanding the tax process. I am going to have to read it twice to grasp everything. The author was Jack Kemp's advisor on tax policy and an economic advisor to Reagan. He has what seems to me as sensible ideas. He is also one of the former Reagan advisors who maintain Reagan could not gain the GOP nomination today. As he has stated in interviews, everyone remembers Reagan cut taxes. every one also forgets he raised them 5 times. Unlike todays GOP, Reagan and George H W Bush hated deficits. I am sure most every one remembers David Stockman's famous comment concerning supply side and trickle down--and Reagan refused to fire him for it. The one line in the book that will always stick in my mind is, "when did it become cool to not pay your fair share of taxes?" Bartlett maintains we will never get out of our fiscal difficulties until somebody does something about Grover Norquist. Stockman has stated within the past year or so that anyone who can read a spreadsheet should know we don't just have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem as well.
The revisionists, including those on the Republican side, drive me nuts. It's one of the reasons this country's in so much trouble. The Reagan years were irrefutably a reflection of deft economic and foreign policies, yet it's unbelievable how many people don't know their history. And unbelievable how many Republicans like Bruce Bartlett and David Stockman couldn't see the forest for the trees while in the thick of it.
I haven't read Bruce Bartlett, but based on his opening "spin" about taxes under Reagan, I'm already annoyed with him.
Ronald Reagan presided over the most significant tax reform effort in our nation’s history, yet historical revisionists continue to besmirch that legacy. I was going to type a long post myself but found a good article that explains it even better than I could in this following dailycaller article below:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/
Over the course of his two terms in office, Reagan presided over several changes to the tax code. What is important to remember — what is vital to understand — is that not all taxes are created equal.
When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)
Yet the notion that Reagan was a tax-hiker has persisted. In recent years, Republicans ranging from former Sen. Alan Simpson to Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett have been cited noting that Reagan raised taxes (he did.) But their statements are often taken out of context — as if to muddy the waters — to make it appear that Reagan was a fan of tax hikes.
The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.
In the research I've done on David Stockman over the years, the guy was just a number cruncher with no real ability to see the macro picture. The same is true of Warren Buffett. He's a great number cruncher, but clueless about macroeconomics. He's just a successful speculator,,and people assume that means he's a great economist. In fact he's a heavily Keynsian indoctrinated business major. Same with these other goofballs. They're not big picture economic thinkers like Reagan was. Reagan majored in econ btw.
Trapper John
11-29-2012, 20:20
XngZeRubicon- Very well said {Salute}
ZonieDiver
11-29-2012, 22:13
XngZeRubicon
Entire post, especially these 'gems':
1)I haven't read Bruce Bartlett, but based on his opening "spin" about taxes under Reagan, I'm already annoyed with him.
2)In the research I've done on David Stockman over the years, the guy was just a number cruncher with no real ability to see the macro picture.
3)The same is true of Warren Buffett. He's a great number cruncher, but clueless about macroeconomics. He's just a successful speculator...
4)Same with these other goofballs.
11-06-2012, 21:07 #89
XngZeRubicon
Guerrilla
Hey Mitt just got Missouri!
Welcome back, XZR! Did the automatic locks on the door to your bunker just release and allow you out after the election 'went south' (oops, bad choice of words)?
As to the quotes from the post referenced first, I'm not sure where to begin.
Let me start here:
1) Thanks for taking the time to research Bartlett prior to denigrating him. Thoughtful discourse is always appreciated here. The fact that you are 'annoyed' means so much to me. In fact, it annoys me. Who cares whether you or I are annoyed?
2) Your research must have been much more extensive than that of President Ronald Reagan who was fooled into putting a mere 'number cruncher' into the position as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in his administration for a little over 4 1/2 years, and defended him, and his theories, vehemently very often - in the face of stiff oppostion. (Do you remember 'those days', or just read about them?
Stockman WAS the face of Reagan's budget and battles with the House and Senate. The 'point man' as it were. But... here, all these years later, you can dismiss him with saying he's "just a number cruncher with no real ability to see the macro picture."
Some time ago, you were queried as to your academic credentials, and you kind of 'blew it off' with a 'no time' remark. Do you have the time now? Just what are YOUR credentials to call him that?
3) Warren Buffett drives me crazy. His obfuscation in remarks such as paying more taxes than his 'secretary' - who is a highly paid (350,000 +) EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - reflects his agenda in part. That said, he surely is much more than a mere "number cruncher" (You like that term, don't you? Your profile says you worked in the Pentagon. I hear that everyone who works there is just a number cruncher.)
Whatever he is, Buffett is pretty shrewd and very able to assess the US and world economies. Once again, he is "clueless about macroeconomics." By the way, Buffett attended the Wharton School of Business at the U of Pennsylvania for two years before transferring to UofNebraska-Lincoln and receiving a BS in Business Administration, then getting his Master of Science in Economics from Columbia Business School, and attending the New York Institute of Finance. (At this point, I'm guessing that your degree<s> are in, or around, macroeconomics. Am I 'spot on' as many like to say?) Underestimating one's adversaries is NOT a very good strategy for those in the intelligence field, is it? Maybe that's why the Pentagon does poorly of late.
4) Goofballs? Really? That's it? Goofballs? At least you could come up with Dark Helmet's assessment of those around him in Spaceballs.
Is the door to the bunker still open? Do you have enough rations in there to get you by until January, 2017? Can the door be sealed from the OUTSIDE?
ZonieDiver
11-29-2012, 22:18
XngZeRubicon- Very well said {Salute}
Seriously? I'm surprised you didn't say 'spot on'!
Do you stand by this statement of support in view of my repsonse to XZR's post, espeically in light of her 'underestimation' of her opponents? I never viewed that action as very effective for SF operations (or any operations - military, political, sports, whatever, for that matter)? Do you?
XngZeRubicon
12-03-2012, 22:18
Welcome back, XZR! Did the automatic locks on the door to your bunker just release and allow you out after the election 'went south' (oops, bad choice of words)?
As to the quotes from the post referenced first, I'm not sure where to begin.
Let me start here:
1) Thanks for taking the time to research Bartlett prior to denigrating him. Thoughtful discourse is always appreciated here. The fact that you are 'annoyed' means so much to me. In fact, it annoys me. Who cares whether you or I are annoyed?
Well let’s see, ZD. Where do I start. I feel like you’ve asked me the economic equivalent of how the universe was created. It would take a lot of broadband to flush out all the answers to your questions, but here’s my first shot at it.
First of all thanks for your concern about the tightness of my bunker’s security. As for credentials, to be honest with you, the people who in my experience grasp how a market economy works best have little to no economics “credentials.” In fact you’d be surprised how many have just a bachelor’s degree or high school degree. I’m talking about many business creators, entrepreneurs, and CEOs.
Does that mean all people with business acumen grasp the big picture? No. I could find you a number of them on Wall Street that don’t for example. But the business people who grasp it the best (in my estimation) typically aren’t out making speeches, writing articles, writing books, or anything along those lines. They’re just busy out working in the free market.
But to the irony of credentials, curiously enough, many economists have no front line experience in the trenches of the very discipline they purport to have expertise in – business -- which is one of the reasons I think a lot of them are pretty bad with the crystal ball. The other major reason is that an overwhelming number have been indoctrinated with Keynsian economic philosophy resulting from the overwhelming domination of Keynsian economic theory in our colleges and universities. To summarize, this theory advocates massive government spending instead of relying on free market corrections.
By the way, in case you weren’t aware, the largest bastions of Keynsian influence of all are found in America’s Ivy League Schools. (I see there is a thread about the 96% of professors…LOL.)
As for my credentials? I started out as a liberal freshman being fully indoctrinated in my undergraduate econ classes with Keynsian philosophy. But after three years of these courses, I began to do independent research for a thesis on the global economy and trade, using sources other than professors, at which point I started to realize the Keynsian stuff wasn’t adding up. After all, Keynes said you could never have high unemployment and high inflation at the same time (stagflation). Yet here it was the Reagan years when he was pulling us out of the years of high inflation, high unemployment, and high interest rates of the 70s.
I went on to do an econ master’s degree in an equally liberal college, this time wanting to unearth every single article or book published about the global economy – both pro and con regarding Keynes – and by the time I was finished, I had clearly realized just how one-sided those 8 or 9 years of prior coursework had been. My very objective research brought me clearly down on the side against John Meynard Keynes as the solution to free market hiccups. I was concerned about whether the university would give me a failing grade for going against the dominant Keynsian theories behind every single class I took in the program. Luckily they did not. But by then I had learned a big lesson about how insidious this combination of liberal, Socialist, Keynsian, Communist, or just plain emotional social justice educators’ liberal economic philosophies were influencing every other walk of life in our country.
Why is that? To begin with macro-economics is not intuitive. Kinda like quantum physics. In fact sometimes it’s the opposite of your intuition. In other words, when you’re listening to a course that’s intuitive, like biology, your critical thinking facilities kick in and allow you to mentally challenge when you’re hearing something that doesn’t add up. Not the case with macro-economics. In academia, students are at the mercy of professors who are molding their malleable brains followed by how they are grading those students for regurgitation of those presumably objective (but subjectively liberal) philosophies. I emphatically assert that the education system is corrupt. Period. But all those pre-law students, business majors, philosophy majors, poli sci majors, journalism majors, international relations majors, and and the like who took their one or two econ classes were coming out of our “best” schools with what they believed was THE way to look at solving our economy’s ills. And that philosophy amounted to massive government spending. And more government spending. This is why I postulate that many Democrats who are graduates of Ivy League schools think the way they do (Clintons, Kerry, Obamas…).
By the time I was taking doctoral classes, at one point I took a monetary policy course where the professor said none of the current economic theories worked and said that’s what we were there for – to come up with one that did. And so I wondered why I was paying THEM. I also remember being unimpressed with many of my peers in the class. Not because they weren’t brilliant; they were. But because they could’ve cared less about solving things like unemployment or preventing a Depression like my father had lived through. They were there because it was just a higher form of math. A love of bigger and longer algorithms. I remember worrying about these type of people that would go on to advise policymakers about the economy. Thus my derision of “number crunchers.” It was at that point I brought my formal economic training to a halt and pursued an executive MBA instead. I spent the subsequent 15 years doing many things out in the world of business… management, entrepreneurship, preparing companies for venture capital, running my part of a business incubator, doing business internationally in Capitalist, Socialist, and Communist systems.
(continued in next post)
XngZeRubicon
12-03-2012, 22:23
The study of the macro-economy is an interdisciplinary one, not just mathematical and rational disciplines but the less scientific disciplines of philosophy, psychology, and international relations for example. An adept macro-economist should understand how the global economy works. Because of our interdependent banking, shipping, transportation, energy/oil, and logistics systems, a good economist should also understand the interdependence of our global economy and by extension, foreign policy, since foreign policy is really the protection of that global infrastructure. Isolationists make me chuckle with their naivetee about where half the products found in their house are transported from.
You made light of my Pentagon days. What I did there wasn’t really about numbers, but the monitoring of that global infrastructure. As the military’s intel representative in the Pentagon’s nerve center, my job was to collate that daily picture from all the intel agencies in case of a crisis, to be ready to brief the National Command Authority if an emergency occurred after hours. Economics, foreign policy, intelligence. All related. Am I fairly judgmental about the qualifications of people purporting to know how it all works? Yes, and I can identify a person’s philosophical bias pretty fast. Ergo Mr. Bartlett.
To your queries about Stockman and Buffet, there are distinct differences between people offering finance services, speculators, math majors, micro-economists, accountants, entrepreneurs, big bank CEOs, hedge firms, small company CEOs, and macro-economists. They can and do overlap, but they are basically different disciplines. Many voters seem to lump them in the same category.
Some of these disciplines, like finance, accounting, and to some extent, micro-economics, are about pretty black and white numbers and very minute details. Those folks have exposure to theory, but typically don’t feel comfortable with ambiguity, and fall back on black and white numbers. Macro on the other hand is an art, not a science. It’s a cross between many disciplines as mentioned in an earlier paragraph. And speaking of Buffet, any school claiming to give a degree in science for macro-economics is full of crap.
All the Ivy League schools Buffet went to were great big Keynsian factories, especially back in the 60s when Keynesian theories were unchallenged. Yes, he got a graduate degree in economics from Columbia University. But Columbia is one of the most left-leaning schools in this country. They studied economics in the Soviet Union too. It was within the social sciences discipline and called Marxist-Leninist ideology.
Do I think Warren Buffett is a brilliant speculator who knows how to make money? Sure. So do people who know how to play probabilities in casinos. That doesn’t automatically make either of them experts on the big picture economy. You refer to Buffet’s experience with the global economy. Been noticing what’s going on in Europe lately? They are self-destructing because of years of advice from Keynsians like Warren Buffet and Paul Krugman. Who were also the intellectual brains behind President Obama’s horrendous economic policies four years ago.
As for David Stockman, he himself admitted he was taken to the woodshed by Ronald Reagan for his infamous interview with the Atlantic Monthly in 1981 when he contradicted Reagan’s agenda. Stockman was an opportunist who really didn’t have an overarching economic philosophy. Stockman could be a thread all by himself, but a few things of note about him. He never earned a degree, in 2007 he was indicted for fraud but never prosecuted, and at Michigan State University from 1964-68, Stockman was active in the anti-Vietnam War movement. He is more of a political animal with an eye for detail and not a businessman or economist. While I admire some of Stockman’s efforts to cut entitlements back in the 80s, anyone proposing raising taxes and cutting defense even more is just another liberal or Keynsian.
I hope I've answered many of your questions.
I started out as a liberal freshman being fully indoctrinated in my undergraduate econ classes with Keynsian philosophy. But after three years of these courses, I began to do independent research for a thesis on the global economy and trade, using sources other than professors, at which point I started to realize the Keynsian stuff wasn’t adding up. It took you three years before you started to engage critically the instruction you were receiving and the materials you were reading yet, somehow, you are not responsible for the choices you made up until that point.
How does that work.
XngZeRubicon
12-03-2012, 23:05
It took you three years before you started to engage critically the instruction you were receiving and the materials you were reading yet, somehow, you are not responsible for the choices you made up until that point.
How does that work.
Three points:
1) If I caveated every single thing I said in those two long posts, it would turn into a book. And obviously you're not an econ major.
2) You completely missed the big picture point I was making.
3) My biggest point is that a great deal of leadership in this country has been indoctrinated in Keysian economic philosophy. The media is even worse than academia. These are two institutions which then propagandize to the rest of the population.
Three points:
1) If I caveated every single thing I said in those two long posts, it would turn into a book. And obviously you're not an econ major.
2) You completely missed the big picture point I was making.
3) My biggest point is that a great deal of leadership in this country has been indoctrinated in Keysian economic philosophy. The media is even worse than academia. These are two institutions which then propagandize to the rest of the population.Is it your argument that economics majors are not allowed to ask themselves "Do I agree with what I'm hearing in lectures or with what I'm reading?"
XngZeRubicon
12-03-2012, 23:12
How does that work.
Unlike History majors who learn by the written word, economics majors are taught through algorithms and graphs. Class is communicated via math, not through the intuitive word. The theory is argued based on math calculations. It's the way ambiguity is squeezed out.
XngZeRubicon
12-03-2012, 23:14
Is it your argument that economics majors are not allowed to ask themselves "Do I agree with what I'm hearing in lectures or with what I'm reading?"
I'll try to say it one more time. Economics classes are taught using algorithms and math. You can question the algorithms all you want. But you must prove your objection via a new algorithm and new graphs.
Unlike History majors who learn by the written word, economics majors are taught through algorithms and graphs. Class is communicated via math, not through the intuitive word. The theory is argued based on math calculations. It's the way ambiguity is squeezed out.
I'll try to say it one more time. Economics classes are taught using algorithms and math. You can question the algorithms all you want. But you must prove your objection via a new algorithm and new graphs.I think your answers are non-responsive.
Do economics text books just have algorithms and graphs? Do instructors just write equations on a blackboard? Do academic journals centering around the study of economics lay out debates among theorists? Do research libraries at universities only have books that agree with what professors say?
My point is this. Not for the first time, you have offered a narrative in which you alleged that your initial political philosophy and your professors "indoctrinated" you. You would like readers to believe that you had a "come to Jesus" moment. You argue that you have since figured it all out using a range of skills that include your ability to think critically and to do the math.
Yet, when it comes to your command of numbers, IMO your expertise is in doubt given your analysis of the pre-election polls <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=473437&postcount=510)>> and your subsequent decision not to explain where you went wrong in your analysis. (Or are your errors also the fault of Keynes, the corrupt media, the ill-informed electorate, and liberal professors?)
As for your critical thinking skills, readers can decide for themselves how to assess your continued admission that you did not engage the intellectual content of your field of study until you were writing a thesis for your major. Those who did not major in economics can take your word for how the subject is taught. (Or they can ask their classmates who did study economics at a very "liberal" university if they experienced similar "indoctrination.")
BTW, academic historians learn by thinking critically about their work with primary source materials as well as by engaging intensely with secondary works that debate interpretations of those materials. HTH.
XngZeRubicon
12-04-2012, 09:09
I think your answers are non-responsive.
Do economics text books just have algorithms and graphs? Do instructors just write equations on a blackboard? Do academic journals centering around the study of economics lay out debates among theorists? Do research libraries at universities only have books that agree with what professors say?
My point is this. Not for the first time, you have offered a narrative in which you alleged that your initial political philosophy and your professors "indoctrinated" you. You would like readers to believe that you had a "come to Jesus" moment. You argue that you have since figured it all out using a range of skills that include your ability to think critically and to do the math.
Yet, when it comes to your command of numbers, IMO your expertise is in doubt given your analysis of the pre-election polls <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=473437&postcount=510)>> and your subsequent decision not to explain where you went wrong in your analysis. (Or are your errors also the fault of Keynes, the corrupt media, the ill-informed electorate, and liberal professors?)
As for your critical thinking skills, readers can decide for themselves how to assess your continued admission that you did not engage the intellectual content of your field of study until you were writing a thesis for your major. Those who did not major in economics can take your word for how the subject is taught. (Or they can ask their classmates who did study economics at a very "liberal" university if they experienced similar "indoctrination.")
BTW, academic historians learn by thinking critically about their work with primary source materials as well as by engaging intensely with secondary works that debate interpretations of those materials. HTH.
Ah, spoken like a true academic, Sigaba, you think in fairly rigid terms.
Where did I say "I did not engage the intellectual content of my field of study until I was writing a thesis for my major?????"
You can question all day long but undergrads don't typically walk in and overturn the ENTIRE prevailing theorums. Physics undergrads don't just walk in as freshmen and declare that we really have 50 planets in our solar system without a whole lot of mathematical proof.
There's a difference between critical thinking and overturning an entire school of thought, in this case Keynsian theory. The fact thatyou don't see the difference between critical thinking in junior undergrad classes..... and debunking an entire rabid liberal philsophy by standing up and declaring the professor and his entire department are idiots without at least some mathmatical proof is scarey.
You ever sit in an electrical engineering or quantum physics class? They're taught through calculus, formulas, algorithms, and other mathmatical means, such as graphs as econ professors have a proclivity to do. Non-econ majors can sit through the obligatory intro or survey classes without much math, but for econ majors, you have to have a strong grasp of calculus and argue your difference through calculus. You seem shocked by that. I think that demonstrates just how little you know of what you speak when it comes to math-based disciplines.
Can academic journals centering around economics write without a single graph or formula in them? Sure. Just like those for physics or engineering. That's not where the real arguments go on, though. The ton of "proofing" behind those arguments are done with algorithms.
As for this quote of yours: "Do research libraries at universities only have books that agree with what professors say?" This is so silly that it's hard to continue to take you seriously.
Now for my command of numbers and prediction about the election, what do they have to do with each other. Polls are based on a long list of assumptions. My assumption that since rational people such as independents were pulling away from the President in double digits, and since minorities were being hurt even worse by his inept economic policies (Latino and black unemployment remained critically elevated at 10.2 and 14.2 respectively), what I didn't see coming in the election was the following fact:
FACT: The minority share of the 2012 electorate increased from 26 percent in 2008 to 28 percent in 2012. (Voting among the African-American community remained steady at 13 percent of the total electorate.)
So if you weren't looking at the President as almost God-like in 2008 when even all those independents were duped by his fresh, attractive face spouting promises that hadn't been tested yet, what would make a reasonable person then decide to go out and vote in 2012 after sitting home in 2008? The reason just didn't compute in my highly logical mind.
Now I know why they voted that way and my lack of cynicism has been formally adjusted.
"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us."
- Rbt Burns
Oh, the irony...
Richard :munchin
Trapper John
12-04-2012, 10:22
"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us."
- Rbt Burns
Oh, the irony...
Richard :munchin
Don't know about you Richard, but I am enjoying this one immensely :D Ding! Next round!
Entire post.Although you're still not answering the question, I will answer yours.
You wrote: "But after three years of these courses, I began to do independent research for a thesis on the global economy and trade, using sources other than professors, at which point I started to realize the Keynsian stuff wasn’t adding up." By your own words, you're saying you did not do independent research until you took a class in which you were required to do so. (This argument is odd given your allegations "indoctrination." If you were really being "indoctrinated," then why were you required to do independent research?)
Rather than continuing to obfuscate, please address the question. Why not go back and look at your syllabi, your lecture notes, your notes on conversations with professors and teaching assistants, and your marginalia and reconstruct your trajectories of thought during your first three years in college. Either you had doubts before you were required to do independent thinking or you didn't. If you had moments of doubt and/or critical thought, it shouldn't be too difficult for a person with your self-focus to remember.
At present, you are making an already unpersuasive narrative of how Comrade Professor Lefty held you down even less convincing. To me, you sound like the too many to list undergraduate and graduate students who complain about the biases and competencies of their professors and allege that dark forces within the Ivory Tower conspired to hold them back.
Ultimately, all I am looking for is a moment in which you take some personal responsibility for the intellectual choices you made as an economics student rather than attributing it all to your "indoctrination," the liberal institutions you attended, and some sort of collusion among elite groups. Did someone put a gun to your head and say "Go to this school or else"? Did they really keep you from taking the initiative to develop your own knowledge and to take risks? Did they revoke your library card? Did they shut you out of office hours? Did they bar you from the stacks? Or did you make choices that kept you from treating your time in college as a lean forward experience until your fourth year?
(Also, are you really equating the soft science with the disciplines of STEM?)
Trapper John
12-04-2012, 18:30
Seriously? I'm surprised you didn't say 'spot on'! :D Good one Zonie!
Do you stand by this statement of support in view of my repsonse to XZR's post, espeically in light of her 'underestimation' of her opponents? I never viewed that action as very effective for SF operations (or any operations - military, political, sports, whatever, for that matter)? Do you?
First, my apologies for not responding to your question earlier. I was only replying to the general notion that all taxation is not equal and that raising or lowering taxes of various types is entirely dependent upon what the objective is and it can not be generalized to say that raising taxes is "bad" and lowering taxes is "good" in every circumstance. Moreover, I think Reagan was one of the best Presidents in modern history. I am irritated at how Reagan and his policies are trotted out by both the left and the right to make whatever point they are trying to make whether it is relevant or not. In general, however, I was in agreement with XZR's point of view from my perspective at 30,000 feet.
I will not pretend to get into the weeds, so to speak, as to David Stockman or Warren Buffett and their respective qualifications, academic credentials, etc. I simply don't know. Nor will I proffer an opinion as to any economic theory. I simply do not know enough in that subject matter. To be sure, before doing so I will do my homework first :lifter
However, I absolutely agree with you that it is imperative to do our homework before engaging - know your opponent, know the environment, know yourself (Tsun Tzu ??).
For now I am going let Sigaba do the heavy lifting :lifter on this one and just sit back and enjoy. Excuse me, I want to get some popcorn and wait for Round 2 :munchin
Badger52
12-04-2012, 20:03
For now I am going let Sigaba do the heavy lifting :lifter on this one and just sit back and enjoy. Excuse me, I want to get some popcorn and wait for Round 2 :munchinThis is awe-inspiring, almost like being Tom Sawyer while someone white-washes the fence. It doesn't feel like homework at all.
:munchin
XngZeRubicon
12-05-2012, 10:14
Although you're still not answering the question, I will answer yours.
You wrote: "But after three years of these courses, I began to do independent research for a thesis on the global economy and trade, using sources other than professors, at which point I started to realize the Keynsian stuff wasn’t adding up." By your own words, you're saying you did not do independent research until you took a class in which you were required to do so. (This argument is odd given your allegations "indoctrination." If you were really being "indoctrinated," then why were you required to do independent research?)
......and the rest of your post?)
Let me get this straight. Our country is on the verge of going over the fiscal cliff because the ruling class can’t figure out the correlation between taxes and growth, and you want to bring this debate all the way down to your hurt feelings about being an academic?
I thought this thread was about one of, if not the most important, issue facing our country and you want to split hairs over the meaning of independent research? If you want to disagree with my overall assertion that the Keynsian belief in ever-more government spending is wrong, why don’t you argue on the merits of that instead of the mixed colors of my socks.
Did I not say that if I caveated everything I said, it would have to be a book instead of a post?
I mean what planet are you from, Sigaba? Take a look at the topic of this thread. It’s about taxes. The economy. How business is incentivized and disincentivized. The point of mentioning my business background was to suggest I have insight about how taxes disincentivize those of us out on the front lines creating the jobs. But here you are a bookish academic with no theoretical OR real world business or economics experience condescending to me like I’m a ten year old. And we wonder why our economy is so messed up and getting worse each day.
So instead of addressing taxes, to which you clearly don’t know the answers, you set out to try to prove I have no critical thinking skills? Darlin, I’ve run the biggest program at AOL, managed the Y2K contingency plan for the Nasdaq Stock Market, and set up joint ventures in China. I think the real world knows critical thinking skills when they see them.
As for your silly post which I’ll put in quotes:
“You wrote: "But after three years of these courses, I began to do independent research for a thesis on the global economy and trade, using sources other than professors, at which point I started to realize the Keynsian stuff wasn’t adding up." By your own words, you're saying you did not do independent research until you took a class in which you were required to do so?”
No, I’m saying it was my senior thesis. I’m saying I didn’t do my senior thesis until I was a senior. Get it? :rolleyes: A thesis is not a class; it’s a research project where you do complete 100% independent research and writing without a professor leading it. I BEGAN to do the thesis as a senior. A thesis by definition is independent research.
And where did I say I’d never done independent research before doing the senior thesis? Why would you even think that? Are you sure you’re an academic? It was a liberal arts college. You take classes in many disciplines by design, most of which involved going to the library to do research. My freshman seminar was a French class about Existentialism. You don't think that required critical thinking and lots of time in the library?
We’re being overrun by elephants and you wanna stomp on piss ants. I want to fix our economy and you want to play word smith games.
Look, you’re clearly trying to appear to know something about an area you know nothing about. Explaining how math-based disciplines work to you is like explaining my mortgage to a nine year old. And I understand why you feel a little offended by my criticism of academia. Did you not read where I said I disagreed with the entire econ department’s philosophy during my master’s program? Did you not see where I said I escaped the indoctrination by the time I was an undergrad senior? You do realize most econ majors NEVER escape the Keynsian propaganda, don’t you? So let me repeat. In our most influential universities, most are taught and never shake the indoctrination that more government spending is the way to fix the ills of an economy. These are our country’s leaders. This insidious thinking has spread like a virus throughout our society for decades and we are presently looking at the results of it. Look at the President asking for MORE stimulus money. This is the part of a post where I work hard to constrain my potty mouth.
And all I’m looking for from you, Sigaba, is that yes, Watson, there’s indoctrination and bias in our education system and press, usually not a result of collusion among elite groups but resulting nevertheless in a tyranny from the ignorance about Capitalism and power those groups have on our society.
But by all means, keep stomping out those piss ants.
........... I want to fix our economy and you want to play word smith games...............
In a short paragraph lay out your plan that would fix our economy. Don't get too wordy or go off in tangents.
"If I was President and had great influence in the Senate and House I would..........."
Entire Post
Thanks for the book link Badger52, that was an excellent read!
MOO: I am beginning to think that the Republican party's seeming demise did indeed happen during FDR, it just took them 80 somewhat years to figure it out, and maybe Reagan was the exception not the rule.
As far as taxes are concerned, the three things that come to mind are: written rate, effective rate(after deductions and loopholes etc), and the people's perception as to what they think they will pay vs. what they actually pay and the financial decisions that they will make based on that perception and/or reality.
My .02, YMMwdV(Thank's QP ZD :) )
1stindoor
12-05-2012, 13:04
As far as taxes are concerned, the three things that come to mind are: written rate, effective rate(after deductions and loopholes etc), and the people's perception as to what they think they will pay vs. what they actually pay and the financial decisions that they will make based on that perception and/or reality.
I think that's a great summation right there...although I would also add a fourth statement..."what rate I think is right/fair versus what rate I think those making X amount of dollars more than me should pay."
I think that's a great summation right there...although I would also add a fourth statement..."what rate I think is right/fair versus what rate I think those making X amount of dollars more than me should pay."
Thanks. Excellent point, though I guess you could put it in the perception category. Ultimately, someone(or many) out there is/are going to be pissed no matter what happens, that's the way it goes: Making decisions usually involves pissing someone off, directly or indirectly. Whereas you can win friends, influence and political positions and capital by making a scapegoat of someone or some institution and making a career of pointing fingers without actually having to lift one.
My .02
How about of instead of raising taxes - we start working on raising taxpayers?
Nobody's talking about unemployment... did it disappear after the election?
Trapper John
12-05-2012, 21:11
Not to interrupt the entertaining and educational dialog between Sigaba and XZR :), I would like to take this intermission to put forth a different perspective. I believe that there is a unifying theme running through this and other threads in this forum and the General Discussion forum (see "Curley Effect", "8 Things..., "Secession", et al.).
To illustrate my point please see the following link: <http://www.directorship.com/the-turnaround-director/> This op-ed piece was published in the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) magazine last year and was written by Mike P - a long-time friend, retired Navy Commander, and business partner (my published comments to his article are also at the end).
The current situation is not unlike a corporation in existential crisis. As a nation we have been in these predicaments before. But to find one of similar existential magnitude, we would need to go back to the Reconstruction Era (IMO). The parallels to Mike P's description of a corporation in need of a turnaround are quite valid.
I also think that Peregrino's post in the "8 Things..." thread is correct ["Every 12-Step Plan starts with a significant emotional event. Obviously America hasn't experienced anything significantly emotional yet. Probably going to be pretty ugly when it finally does happen."] If things do not turn around, and I believe that there is little reason to believe that they will, then we can predictably expect to see another down-grade of US credit and a likely loss of reference currency status. If that happens the inflation rate we will see will make the Carter years look like fiscal austerity. A financial collapse will follow and it will precipitate a great deal of civil unrest that makes the civil unrest in our major cities during the '60s look like a "mani-pedi' party. The vacuum that will be created by the US inability to project power and provide stability in the world will make the world a much, much more dangerous place. Frankly, I think that all of the foregoing is predictable and it is only a probability question verging on inevitability.
If we have, in fact, passed a "tipping point", IMO we have, then it matters not whether the Keynsians, or the Libs, or the naive academics,or any other group, sect, or cult is to blame. It matters not whether there was a nefarious plan or just ineptitude, or simple laziness that brought us to this point. What does matter is LEADERSHIP, clarity of purpose (mission), a well thought out plan, and competent execution of the plan (Management) - all of things outlined in Mike P's op-ed piece.
In an earlier post and in response to a question by Buffalobob, I said that we need John Galt and that there are many John Galts on this site. I also said that this site is a virtual Galt's Gulch. I sincerely believe that. We have a plan - its the US Constitution. The electorate is going to have its "come to Jesus moment" (no offense to the agnostics, secular humanists, atheists, Buddhists, Jews, and pagans among us :)). At that time, if and when it comes, it will be up to us and the other John Galts like us to provide the leadership and management for the second Reconstruction Era.
Entire post.
I know what a senior thesis is.* The question you're evading is: Why did you wait until you were a senior before you started doing research in your primary area of interest?
Here's my issue. You are attempting to present yourself as an intellectual factotum who is knowledgeable in subjects ranging from STEM, to economics, to history. Yet, when asked straight forward follow-up questions about that background and your intellectual development, you choose not to answer.
To me, it seems that you would have others believe that you're an expert because you say so-- that your expertise is only understandable by other experts, who, by your logic, really aren't qualified to judge you because they've been "indoctrinated" or they don't know what you know or they're not economics majors. (To me, your argument that one has to study economics to understand how the subject is taught is not very convincing. To me, your overall argument strikes me as a transparent attempt to indoctrinate people rather than to educate them so they can make up their own minds. To me, while you say you've taken a 180 degree turn from your years as an "indoctrinated" "liberal" you are still using the tactics of that cohort. But not as well.)
If you'd read my previous questions carefully, you'd have noticed that I'm asking questions about your basic critical thinking skills and their development. What really happened during those three years before you went from being an "indoctrinated" undergraduate to the expert on economics that you want others to believe that you are?
You want members of this BB to trust your judgement, your expertise, and to count you among the wise. But you will not address the fact that you were, by your own admission, "indoctrinated." To me, this admission is highly problematic. How much faith should stakeholders place in you if your lead is an admission of being indoctrinated and that you did nothing about it? (That is, until you were required to take a class.)
In my experience, actual intellectual powerhouses--regardless of their profession or areas of expertise or their politics--provide straight forward answers about the development of their thought and their knowledge. In my experience, they talk about when they got it right and when the got it wrong with equal candor. Some, due to a sense of modesty, may need to be asked more than once. Given the ease with which you talk about yourself, I didn't quite realize how challenging such questions would be to you.
While it is not surprising that you won't answer a straight forward question--you pay that courtesy to others often so I know not to take it personally--it is surprising that you're now using the fiscal cliff as an excuse for not doing so.
What's your next reason for not answering a question put to you? A flash mob of zombie Mayans of the Apocalypse eating your computer?
Also, your "it would take a book" excuse for not bringing a higher level of precision to your writing is not compelling. In the course of your academic endeavors, you never encountered literature reviews in which eggheads summarized decades of scholarship in a few paragraphs? In your work as a consultant you've never been in a situation where you needed to boil down a complicated report into an executive summary that was both concise (BLUF) and yet also captured the nuances of the most vital details?Not to interrupt the entertaining and educational dialog between Sigaba and XZR :):eek:Oh, how you wound me with winged words!:)
__________________________________________________ ___
* IME, a thesis is not the result of 100% independent research but research that fits within the broader parameters of the course requirements and a specific major. For example, I could not have written an undergraduate thesis on early modern European naval history because I was enrolled in a class centered around modern American diplomatic/military/naval history.
I think I'll move to the Netherlands where I can pay 52% vs my current 22% of taxable earned income to the government just to be able to mosey through Amsterdam's De Oude Kerk district and window shop.
What a deal. :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
I like to keep it simple and free of academic pissing contests. The founders intent is obvious. If we refer to the supreme law of the land, this is not even an argument until 1913/16th amendment. Also, general welfare did not mean EBT cards.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...
Trapper John
12-06-2012, 10:55
You all really need to see this clip at the following link <http://www.ntrc.info/doorbell.html> It was sent to me by another retired friend (Col, USAF) and it is Brilliant!
ZonieDiver
12-06-2012, 11:12
I like to keep it simple and free of academic pissing contests. The founders intent is obvious. If we refer to the supreme law of the land, this is not even an argument until 1913/16th amendment. Also, general welfare did not mean EBT cards.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...
Good points.
May I enquire as to what the "Founding Fathers" thoughts were in regard to large, standing armies?
Good points.
May I enquire as to what the "Founding Fathers" thoughts were in regard to large, standing armies?
What was the size of the US Military Forces in 1790 vs the population of the United Sates at the time?
What is the size of the US (Active & Reserves) Military forces in 2012 vs the population at this time.
How many folks work for the IRS, TSA, FBI, DEA and ATF right now?
I think we are a bit past what the Founding Fathers envisioned for Para Military Forces on the Government Payroll.
How about of instead of raising taxes - we start working on raising taxpayers?
Nobody's talking about unemployment... did it disappear after the election?
Political capital. The "rich" who are already writing a hefty check to Uncle Sam are excoriated by BHO and the rest of the left, because the check isn't hefty enough. If you make a tax payer, then you have lost a reliable voter, the old "rob Peter to pay Paul, and so that Paul will be a voter for life". Whether an opportunist or an ideologue(or both), BHO and the rest of D administration will do what it takes to stay in power (and push their ideology), it's really just a continuation of FDR's methods and legacy.
My .02
Badger52
12-06-2012, 14:14
I think we are a bit past what the Founding Fathers envisioned for Para Military Forces on the Government Payroll.Some apparently think we're not there yet... (http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=720794) *
A round goin' the other way, found by accident in the midst of another discussion ongoing regarding getting NG units more re-purposed back to their bread & butter mission WITHIN their respective states - as in, less door kicking, more bulldozers, generator sets, and rolling water purification capability.
The author is clearly destined for lofty things.
* Spoiler alert: "Recommendations" begin on pg. 52 (pg. 60 as your PDF viewer sees it).
XngZeRubicon
12-06-2012, 19:48
In a short paragraph lay out your plan that would fix our economy. Don't get too wordy or go off in tangents.
"If I was President and had great influence in the Senate and House I would..........."
Pete,
Small businesses create between 65-75% of the jobs in this country, depending on how you crunch the numbers. It’s definitely well over half the jobs. And as much as the PR about taxes affecting only 2% sounds appealing to those who fall for it, the unintended consequences and the numbers within the numbers wind up hurting those smaller businesses in what I call the “real economy” more than the fat cat speculators like Warren Buffett.
Another thing is that the intangibles, which get no weight at all, are a huge component of the business psychology (both big and small) when taxes are raised instead of cut (or kept the same at least). Right now, uncertainty and fear caused by the massive national debt, increased taxation, and increased regulations have an enormous multiplier effect that’s not even accounted for in numbers offered by liberals. It’s why business is collectively sitting on trillions of dollars of money instead of investing it. That’s why the economy is anemic and continues to contract. The result is less growth and less jobs.
The way to get an economy growing is not by increasing business fear and uncertainty, taking more from their pockets through taxes, increasing regulations, and failing to fix the debt problem. This will dangerously contract the economy. This is the Obama solution by the way.
If I were President and my party had control of both houses, this is how I’d grow the economy. There are variations for each variable but these are the general concepts.
1)Reform Entitlements/Cut Spending!!. Any number of ways to do it. At a minimum we should limit growth of entitlements to no more than 2 or 2.5% a year. The details can be hammered out in negotiations but move Soc Sec from 65 to 67. I would go so far as to means test the very wealthy receiving SSN. Return safety nets such as unemployment assistance to shorter terms instead of 99 weeks. Same for welfare, food stamps, etc. They should serve as safety nets for short periods of time, not long-term crutches. Negotiate cuts from every Federal Department, including Defense. DoD has already undergone a good share of their cuts but I could squeeze a little more. I’d have to look at the details. I’m just giving broad brush now. Cut Dept of Education and EPA. Push Education back to the states and roll legitimate parts of environmental protection under another Dept.
2)Tax reform. The very massive size of the tax code itself, which requires extensive and expensive assistance by accountants, needs to be simplified because it’s analogous to adding 60 pounds of fat to a 130 pound runner right now. I’m basically 99% convinced we should go ahead with a flat tax. For one this would make it easier to squeeze out fraud and ID tax cheats and get more revenue into the treasury by broadening the base, and secondly, everyone would have skin in the game and feel the pain of tax “hikes.” Currently around 50% of Americans pay no income tax and it’s as if that 50% is anesthesized from the pain of taxes. We can make exceptions to the flat tax for the very lowest category of payers. Drop Capital Gains from 35% to 25%. We are the second highest corporate rate in the world and dropping it would bring jobs back home.
3)Loopholes. Loopholes are a subset of Taxes, but we get into a very gray area with loopholes and deductions. This is where the experts can hammer things out, but there are good deductions/loopholes which serve as investment incentives for growth of the economy and then there are situations such as GE not paying a penny in income taxes because of manipulation of too many loopholes. We have to find a way to disallow the GE type of corporate welfare bullshit without hurting all deductions. I’d have to see how the details were negotiated in this area.
4)Regulations. While big businesses can afford the lawyers and accountants to navigate regulations, small businesses are drowning in them. I don’t think most people realize that bureaucrats add x amount of regs every year without ever taking any away. We need to return to a reasonable amount.
5)Negotiate tough terms with China on currency devaluation issue and trade issues.
6)Repeal Obamacare. Reform health insurance with tort reform and opening up to interstate trade for starters.
There’s still a lot of room for maneuvering within these categories. The general goal? Cut spending and lighten the tax and regulatory burden for job creators.
Reagan reached rates of 8% growth with similar policies. Under Obama, we’ve had a growth rate of about 1.5% this year. See the difference?
ddoering
12-06-2012, 20:41
If I were President and my party had control of both houses, this is how I’d grow the economy. There are variations for each variable but these are the general concepts.
1)Reform Entitlements/Cut Spending!!. Any number of ways to do it. At a minimum we should limit growth of entitlements to no more than 2 or 2.5% a year. The details can be hammered out in negotiations but move Soc Sec from 65 to 67. I would go so far as to means test the very wealthy receiving SSN. Return safety nets such as unemployment assistance to shorter terms instead of 99 weeks. Same for welfare, food stamps, etc. They should serve as safety nets for short periods of time, not long-term crutches. Negotiate cuts from every Federal Department, including Defense. DoD has already undergone a good share of their cuts but I could squeeze a little more. I’d have to look at the details. I’m just giving broad brush now. Cut Dept of Education and EPA. Push Education back to the states and roll legitimate parts of environmental protection under another Dept.
2)Tax reform. The very massive size of the tax code itself, which requires extensive and expensive assistance by accountants, needs to be simplified because it’s analogous to adding 60 pounds of fat to a 130 pound runner right now. I’m basically 99% convinced we should go ahead with a flat tax. For one this would make it easier to squeeze out fraud and ID tax cheats and get more revenue into the treasury by broadening the base, and secondly, everyone would have skin in the game and feel the pain of tax “hikes.” Currently around 50% of Americans pay no income tax and it’s as if that 50% is anesthesized from the pain of taxes. We can make exceptions to the flat tax for the very lowest category of payers. Drop Capital Gains from 35% to 25%. We are the second highest corporate rate in the world and dropping it would bring jobs back home.
3)Loopholes. Loopholes are a subset of Taxes, but we get into a very gray area with loopholes and deductions. This is where the experts can hammer things out, but there are good deductions/loopholes which serve as investment incentives for growth of the economy and then there are situations such as GE not paying a penny in income taxes because of manipulation of too many loopholes. We have to find a way to disallow the GE type of corporate welfare bullshit without hurting all deductions. I’d have to see how the details were negotiated in this area.
4)Regulations. While big businesses can afford the lawyers and accountants to navigate regulations, small businesses are drowning in them. I don’t think most people realize that bureaucrats add x amount of regs every year without ever taking any away. We need to return to a reasonable amount.
5)Negotiate tough terms with China on currency devaluation issue and trade issues.
6)Repeal Obamacare. Reform health insurance with tort reform and opening up to interstate trade for starters.
There’s still a lot of room for maneuvering within these categories. The general goal? Cut spending and lighten the tax and regulatory burden for job creators.
Reagan reached rates of 8% growth with similar policies. Under Obama, we’ve had a growth rate of about 1.5% this year. See the difference?
If I were President I'd declare an emergency, round up Congress and shoot them and then rule by decree as a benevolent dictator loved by all.:munchin
Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808.html
"Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%..........................."
Most of us knew that already - and the bit of removing large numbers off the bottom.
GratefulCitizen
12-07-2012, 22:14
"Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes.
Too little.
:rolleyes:
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2012/12/tax-shares-update.html
Trapper John
12-08-2012, 10:12
Entire Post
XZR, I am in 99% agreement with all that you said, and very well said by the way. The 1% is that I would like to see (1) a discussion about a Federal Excise tax capped to a percentage of GDP v. Flat Tax and (2) a spending cap also linked to GDP (< 20%), and (3) a balanced budget amendment.
The real problem is (IMO) not in the plan - this was (more or less) the Romney/Ryan plan- the problem lies in communicating the message. WE ARE FAILING MISERABLY AT THAT!!!
IMO all of the class warfare and racial divisiveness is PSYOP warfare at its most effective and it is effectively distracting the electorate - divide and conquer - with a dose of the Curley Effect in operation (unintended consequence).
You, will probably note from some of my other posts that I am honing in on execution and management of a well conceived and thought out plan that can and will be an effective counter to the current PSYOP from the left.
Timing is everything. When things get much worse (and they will given the path that we are on) that will be the time. One of the key elements that is missing is LEADERSHIP! Want to run for POTUS? :D
History is made by courageous minorities with a plan.
I would go so far as to means test the very wealthy receiving SSN.
So does that mean the "very wealthy" at some point don't have to pay in as much SS, get a tax credit for what they put in, or are you advocating a shadow progressive tax wherein "The Rich" pay into SS, but aren't allowed to receive it when they are age-eligible, aka "forced charity"?
Badger52
12-08-2012, 19:39
So does that mean the "very wealthy" at some point don't have to pay in as much SS, get a tax credit for what they put in, or are you advocating a shadow progressive tax wherein "The Rich" pay into SS, but aren't allowed to receive it when they are age-eligible, aka "forced charity"?I would like to see that query taken a step further and ask this:
Is there an economic benefit long-term to a mechanism that would allow even those who are not "very wealthy" - but who now have made their own way to the point where SS is a minor consideration even though they damn sure paid their dues while getting there - to be bought out by the Govt? Paying a bunch of SS over time and having payment of that back decrement a separately existing & self-made umbrella seems like a means test already. In fact, what it really sounds like is:
"...I mean, at some point you've made enough money." - Barack Obama
Taxing the Poor
http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/taxing-the-poor.html
"With all the talk about taxing the rich, we hear very little talk about taxing the poor. Yet the marginal tax rate on someone living in poverty can sometimes be higher than the marginal tax rate on millionaires.
While it is true that nearly half the households in the country pay no income tax at all, the apparently simple word "tax" has many complications that can be a challenge for even professional economists to untangle.......................
Interesting article by Mr Sowell - just another one of many he's done.
GratefulCitizen
12-10-2012, 20:19
The poor are trapped.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2012/12/10/the_flat_tax_the_us_effectively_already_has
http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2012/11/due-to-welfare-benefits-you-actually.html
The poor are trapped.
Horatio Alger
In his rags to riches tales
lied to us. The cad.
Richard :munchin
An interesting article on how "Yankee ingenuity" also beats the higher taxed Euro boundaries.
Richard :munchin
How U.S. Firms like Google and Amazon Minimize Their European Taxes
Time, 4 Dec 2012
Britain is a huge market for Amazon, the U.S. online retailing giant, accounting for as much as 25% of its total sales outside the U.S. — more than $5 billion annually. The company also employs about 15,000 staffers in the U.K. But it paid less than $3 million in tax to the British Inland Revenue last year.
How so? Because Amazon’s main European operations are incorporated in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a speck on the European map that, like Britain, is a member of the European Union but that for years has done a roaring business by offering foreign companies extremely low tax rates. By being based there, Amazon reports only about $330 million in revenue in the U.K. — compared with almost $12 billion in Luxembourg, where its taxes came to just $10.7 million. That’s a rate of just 0.009%. Amazon can do this because its U.K. arm is registered as a service company for the Luxembourg holding company Amazon EU SARL.
That type of complex corporate structure — used by many multinationals operating in Europe, including Google and Starbucks — is legal. It simply takes advantage of sharp differences in corporate tax rates and incentives in Europe to optimize tax payments and in the process boost profits. The European Union is a single market, which means that companies can incorporate anywhere and sell their goods and services across the continent, but because there is no harmonized taxation system, it’s a playground for smart accountants and tax specialists who know how to exploit the differences.
Google bases its European operations in low-tax Ireland and remits some of its profits to a company in Bermuda as payments for intellectual property. Starbucks is based in the Netherlands and pays a Swiss company for its coffee.
Now comes the political backlash. The Public Accounts Committee of the British Parliament on Monday released a report that called this type of business practice “immoral” and asked companies, including the three U.S. firms, to pay more. “We consider that paying an appropriate amount of tax in the country in which profits are made is not only a matter of basic economics. It is also a matter of morality,” Margaret Hodge, who chaired the committee, said in a statement. “The U.K. should be taking the lead in making this point.”
Some Britons are hoping that the public fuss about the low tax payments will shame the firms into changing their arrangements. Referring to Starbucks, which has posted a financial loss in Britain for 14 of the past 15 years despite having a 31% market share, U.K. Business Secretary Vince Cable told the Guardian that he “can fully understand why people would vote with their feet as a result of their tax dodging.”
It’s not just Britain that is starting to make a fuss. France has taken legal action against both Amazon and Google, and a report in the French business daily Les Echos says the socialist government is looking to beef up its arsenal tax measures. Legislators in Germany and Italy are also angry. After all, at a time when governments are looking to cut spending and raise taxes, it’s galling to discover that some of the richest companies in the world seem to be thumbing their noses at you, tax-wise.
However, other than sending in tax inspectors to ensure that nothing fraudulent is being done, there’s not a great deal that governments can do to root out the practice. The key here is what’s known as transfer pricing, which is accountant-speak for determining which revenues and profits should be recognized in which parts of a multinational company with affiliates in numerous countries. For example, Google has a very strong case to make that its intellectual property (in other words, the sophisticated algorithms that make its search engine so useful) is something for which its subsidiaries worldwide should be paying for — thereby transferring a portion of their revenue back to Google elsewhere.
Over the past decade, international rules that govern transfer pricing and tax loopholes have been tightened under the auspices of the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which in particular has put growing pressure on tax havens. The OECD is now trying to take its work a step further with an initiative called base erosion and profit shifting. This came out of the G-20 meeting in Mexico last summer; the OECD is supposed to issue a report on the subject in early 2013. But as it acknowledges, “domestic rules for international taxation and internationally agreed standards are still grounded in an economic environment characterized by a lower degree of economic integration across borders, rather than today’s environment of global taxpayers, characterized by the increasing importance of intellectual property as a value-driver and by constant developments of information and communication technologies.”
In other words, you can howl as much as you want, but as long as there are free markets, different tax rates in different countries and armies of clever accountants, public shaming may well be the most effective strategy to deal with the problem.
http://business.time.com/2012/12/04/how-u-s-firms-like-google-and-amazon-minimize-their-european-taxes/?xid=newsletter-weekly
XngZeRubicon
12-11-2012, 18:43
the problem lies in communicating the message. WE ARE FAILING MISERABLY AT THAT!!!
IMO all of the class warfare and racial divisiveness is PSYOP warfare at its most effective and it is effectively distracting the electorate - divide and conquer - with a dose of the Curley Effect in operation (unintended consequence).
TJ,
To be very honest, I don’t believe we can win the persuasion battle. I’ve spent years trying to have conversations about how the economy works with friends, neighbors, co-workers, family, and strangers. It doesn’t resonate with the average person’s instincts, unless they’ve been on the front lines of building businesses. I thought by this year the poor economic numbers would be so obvious that it would be easy to finally see. Well, they finally see the numbers, but they can’t figure out the causation. Not only is much of it counter-intuitive, but because you have liberals there at every term obfuscating, lying, and distracting.
For example, here’s one that’s even tough for some conservatives to understand. The unemployment rate dropped last week from 7.9% to 7.7%. Sounds good doesn’t it? Under any other Administration it would’ve been. But because of this President’s pathetic stewardship of the economy, a record number of people have dropped out of the workforce –just finally given up looking - thereby distorting the algorithm used to calculate the formula. In plain terms, only 64% of the workforce is working, the lowest in our history. That .2 drop in the Unemployment rate wasn’t because we’re growing like gangbusters; it’s because a substantial number of people stopped looking and don’t get counted as unemployed.
The ones that already get it or could be persuaded showed their numbers last month during the election. That number fell below 50%.
When you can't persuade more than 50% of the electorate with facts because they can't comprehend them, it seems to me all other options are ugly. I try to keep looking for a positive solution, but I only see ugly ones right now.
XngZeRubicon
12-11-2012, 18:59
TJ, let me take another approach to our communication challenge. Here’s the “persuasion” problem we’re up against with a subject that goes counter to one’s intuition. (And thanks to Badger, we have somewhat of an analogy to work with if you suspend a little disbelief.) It’s an imperfect analogy but it’s similar to asking voters to pull the lever for just one question: whether the proper response to a stalling aircraft is to pull or push the nose of the fuselage up or down.
Since the natural sensation is to think the plane is falling out of the sky, unless they’ve had any special flight training or knowledge of aerodynamics, most would vote to pull the nose up. If you’re falling, intuition says to counter by pulling up. Doing the right thing, which is to push down into the stall, is counter-intuitive.
To continue the very loose analogy, back during the Great War, a British philosopher named John Meynard CandyCanes has convinced the sitting American President that Allied warplanes stopped falling out of the sky because pilots were finally remembering to pull their noses up (vice the reality that his countrymen were successfully whacking enemy AD), and because of the President’s patronage, CandyCane becomes a sensation in the press for having helped win the war and he’s all the rage. Soon afterward, a new cult of CandyCane theory begins to penetrate the halls of academia.
(In reality, this is pretty much how Keynsian economic theory took hold within academia. FDR adopts Keynsian’s theory of massive government stimulus to fix the economy in the 1940s. Economic Departments start to spring up in the universities with Keynsian theory taking center stage. )
Over the decades the theory takes hold within one political party, within academia, within the press, and within Hollywood, because it just makes such “good” sense. The public buys it because it dovetails with their instincts. They accept that if you’re ever in a small aircraft when the pilot has a heart attack, pull the nose up, not down.
Of course in the middle of all this popularity with the CandyCane theory, there’s an association of small craft Cessna and Piper pilots that’s been trying to dispel the myth for decades, but it’s just not breaking through the echo chamber of various well known American institutions. In fact, the liberal institutions counter that these pilots are just covering the butts for themselves and their friends so that if a plane crashes, they are free of liability.
Then decades after CandyCanesian theory has penetrated all aspects of society, the public finally notices an unusual number of aircraft crashing. It sort of alarms them, but they go with the “it can’t happen to me” phenom, and they continue to agree with the rants of one political party that has made sense to their instincts over the years – the rant of “don’t worry, CandyCanes theory still works.” Those small craft pilots are crazy when they tell you to push the fuselage down. That’s crazy to push the nose down if you’re falling out of the sky!
And as with most things that are counter-intuitive AND don’t immediately impact people’s day-to-day lives, most people are not going to take the time to research the aerodynamics themselves. Most are too distracted with tangible day-to-day issues. They have better, more pressing things to do with their lives. It’s too complicated so they defer to someone else’s opinion, especially if it makes good intuitive sense. And there are others who just don’t care.
This is our dilemma today. Many conservatives are saying we need to change the PR technique. But how do you teach people something they don’t want to learn?
Trapper John
12-11-2012, 20:38
This is our dilemma today. Many conservatives are saying we need to change the PR technique. But how do you teach people something they don’t want to learn?
XZR, thank you for the thoughtful replies and your POV in this and the immediately preceding post. I begin with your last question (above) and say that I think you are absolutely correct and suggest that "pain" is sometimes the best attention getter and teacher. We are all going to experience economic pain in the very near future and it is then that the 53% are going to ask why? That will be our opportunity!
I have recently been rethinking the whole counter PR strategy too. In its place we may want to focus on a state-by-state, issue-by-issue strategy. The recent right-to-work challenge in Michigan serves as an example of how this can work. If we focus on bringing more blue states into the right-to-work sphere, we might just turn a few more blue states red. This would also help to neutralize a significant voting block for the Dems - big labor. May be more effective than a counter PR campaign for all the reasons that you suggested. In the meantime we just need to put a muzzle on the idiots that talk about such nonsense as "legitimate rape".... it's about the economy - STUPID!
On another point, I am not so anti-Keynesian as you, however. There are situations where Keynesian economics works. The WPA program FDR implemented for instance. It put people back to work and provided infrastructure improvement. This might be a good idea for welfare reform today. I absolutely agree, however, it is not a panacea for all economic problems and the generalized application of Keynesian theory is a huge mistake.
Thanks again - I do enjoy reading your posts.
The founders intent is obvious. Which ones?:rolleyes:
TJ, let me take another approach to our communication challenge. Here’s the “persuasion” problem we’re up against with a subject that goes counter to one’s intuition. (And thanks to Badger, we have somewhat of an analogy to work with if you suspend a little disbelief.) It’s an imperfect analogy but it’s similar to asking voters to pull the lever for just one question: whether the proper response to a stalling aircraft is to pull or push the nose of the fuselage up or down.
Since the natural sensation is to think the plane is falling out of the sky, unless they’ve had any special flight training or knowledge of aerodynamics, most would vote to pull the nose up. If you’re falling, intuition says to counter by pulling up. Doing the right thing, which is to push down into the stall, is counter-intuitive.
To continue the very loose analogy, back during the Great War, a British philosopher named John Meynard CandyCanes has convinced the sitting American President that Allied warplanes stopped falling out of the sky because pilots were finally remembering to pull their noses up (vice the reality that his countrymen were successfully whacking enemy AD), and because of the President’s patronage, CandyCane becomes a sensation in the press for having helped win the war and he’s all the rage. Soon afterward, a new cult of CandyCane theory begins to penetrate the halls of academia.
(In reality, this is pretty much how Keynsian economic theory took hold within academia. FDR adopts Keynsian’s theory of massive government stimulus to fix the economy in the 1940s. Economic Departments start to spring up in the universities with Keynsian theory taking center stage. )
Over the decades the theory takes hold within one political party, within academia, within the press, and within Hollywood, because it just makes such “good” sense. The public buys it because it dovetails with their instincts. They accept that if you’re ever in a small aircraft when the pilot has a heart attack, pull the nose up, not down.
Of course in the middle of all this popularity with the CandyCane theory, there’s an association of small craft Cessna and Piper pilots that’s been trying to dispel the myth for decades, but it’s just not breaking through the echo chamber of various well known American institutions. In fact, the liberal institutions counter that these pilots are just covering the butts for themselves and their friends so that if a plane crashes, they are free of liability.
Then decades after CandyCanesian theory has penetrated all aspects of society, the public finally notices an unusual number of aircraft crashing. It sort of alarms them, but they go with the “it can’t happen to me” phenom, and they continue to agree with the rants of one political party that has made sense to their instincts over the years – the rant of “don’t worry, CandyCanes theory still works.” Those small craft pilots are crazy when they tell you to push the fuselage down. That’s crazy to push the nose down if you’re falling out of the sky!
And as with most things that are counter-intuitive AND don’t immediately impact people’s day-to-day lives, most people are not going to take the time to research the aerodynamics themselves. Most are too distracted with tangible day-to-day issues. They have better, more pressing things to do with their lives. It’s too complicated so they defer to someone else’s opinion, especially if it makes good intuitive sense. And there are others who just don’t care.
This is our dilemma today. Many conservatives are saying we need to change the PR technique. But how do you teach people something they don’t want to learn?
Completely disagree. You like many others are over thinking this in my opinion. You may think that some think it is counterintuitive to push over the nose in a stall. BUt how many Joe Schmoes out there know that in order to jump a car with a dead battery, you have to pushstart it? Same concept. Build up speed to jump start the engine.
The unemployment rate dropping from 7.9 to 7.7 is the same. The GOP is trying to write a masters thesis to prove how smart they are, when coming up with a message at the 8th grade reading comprehension level will do.
It isn't difficult to get the average citizen to understand the "real" unemployment rate is based on people dropping out of the job search. I am sure a lot of Americans know one of those people. We need to draw a stick figure instead of trying to create a Picasso.
I know 2 4-star generals that are both big brain guys. One of them makes you feel like an idiot when you talk to him, because he is so enamored with himself and all the knowledge he has in his head, he needs to make people feel like idiots in order to make himself feel superior.
The other is just as smart, if not smarter, but is the exact opposite. He has the ability to relate to the people that work for him. Have a conversation where there is an exchange of ideas, even if his ideas are bigger than mine :) where he can pass on his knowledge without making the rest of us feel like idiots.
Who do you think garners the respect of his subordinates? Who do you think inspires his people to think in new ways?
That is the GOPs problem. We are so concerned with trying to convince ourselves how smart we are, that we are completely losing the audience we are trying to get to embrace us. No one likes to hear they are stupid.
And who says these people don't want to learn? There are many many of them that are too tired after working 2-3 jobs to put food on the table, a roof over their kids heads and clothes on their backs to listen to the news, read the newspaper, etc. The come home, want to put their feet up, put on a little reality TV to take their minds off their own problems, and maybe have a beer. How do we reach those folks? How do we take our message and put it in a format that appeals to a wider audience. Not everyone watches Neil Cavuto every night or CNBC. But how many people are likely to flip to Jeapordy once in a while while eating their TV dinner?
I am not saying dumb it down, per se. But we need to start a foundation of knowledge before we can expect people to understand economic philosophy at the level you are used to.
Trapper John has the right idea with what happened in Michigan today. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get the average citizen to understand that what the State Legislature did was not Union Busting. It was simply allowing people to choose if they wanted to pay union dues or not, instead of them being automatically deducted from their paychecks by the state. If the unions are so great, then they will continue to pull in the money with dues paying members. But if they are perceived to be no better than hired thugs, they aren't going to get the money they need to survive and will slowly go away into the dust bin of history. Once again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that once Indiana became a RTW, they started taking away business from MI. So now MI is a RTW, which Midwest state is going to be the 25th RTW in the country? They are dominoes that are begining to fall.
All politics are local, and we as the GOP have forgotten that. We have been busted down to size, and now we need to learn to crawl again before we can walk. We need to learn how to draw a stick figure before we can become the next Picasso. So lets start at the local government level. May it take a few years to get us back to a Conservative Presidency? Yep, but maybe we will be the better for it, because we will have a foundation to stand on, instead of empty words and promises. We need to start practicing what we preach.
Trapper John
12-11-2012, 21:33
BUt how many Joe Schmoes out there know that in order to jump a car with a dead battery, you have to pushstart it? Same concept. Build up speed to jump start the engine. You ever try that with an automatic transmission? How'd that work out? You have just made my point that no one approach works in every situation.
I know 2 4-star generals that are both big brain guys. One of them makes you feel like an idiot when you talk to him, because he is so enamored with himself and all the knowledge he has in his head, he needs to make people feel like idiots in order to make himself feel superior.
The other is just as smart, if not smarter, but is the exact opposite. He has the ability to relate to the peopel that work for him. Have a conversation where there is an exchange of ideas, even if his ideas are bigger than mine :) where he can pass on his knowledge without making the rest of us feeling like idiots.
Who do you think garners the respect of his subordinates? Who do you think inspires his people to think in new ways? What you have just described is the central problem of the GOP - LEADERSHIP
That is the GOPs problem. We are so concerned with trying to convince ourselves how smart we are, that we are completely losing the audience we are trying to get to embrace us. No one likes to hear they are stupid.
And who says these people don't want to learn? There are many many of them that are too tired after working 2-3 jobs to put food on the table, a roof over their kids heads and clothes on their backs to listen to the news, read the newspaper, etc. The come home, want to put their feet up, put on a little reality TV to take their minds off their own problems, and maybe have a beer. A point of reality we need to keep in mind (SA!!!!)
Trapper John has the right idea with what happened in Michigan today. Thanks, even a blind squirrel will find an acorn once in a while :D It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get the average citizen to understand that what the State Legislature did was not Union Busting. It was simply allowin peopel to choose if the wanted to pay union dues or not. If the unions are so great, then they will continue to pull in the money with dues paying members. But if they are perceived to be no better than hired thugs, they aren't going to get the money they need to survive and will slowly go away into the dust bin of history. Once again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that once Indiana became a RTW, they started taking away business from MI. So now MI is a RTW, which Midwest state is going to be the 25th RTW in the country?
All politics are local, and we as the GOP have forgotten that.Very true and another point we need to keep squarely in our sites. We have been busted down to size, and now we need to learn to crawl again before we can walk. We need to learn how to draw a stick figure before we can become the next Picasso. So lets start at the local government level. May it take a few years to get us back to a Conservative Presidency? Yep, but maybe we will be the better for it, because we will have a foundation to stand on, instead of empty words and promises. We need to start practicing what we preach. AMEN, HALLELUJAH, PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION :D
Thanks for the post {Salute}
Thanks for the post {Salute}
Most aircraft I am familiar with have a stick :p
Trapper John
12-11-2012, 21:48
Most aircraft I am familiar with have a stick :p
Touche :cool:
(In reality, this is pretty much how Keynsian economic theory took hold within academia. FDR adopts Keynsian’s theory of massive government stimulus to fix the economy in the 1940s. Economic Departments start to spring up in the universities with Keynsian theory taking center stage.)What are your sources for these generalizations?
A search of ten minutes on Google--including five minutes at The Economist's node on Keynes (http://www.economist.com/topics/john-maynard-keynes)--provides evidence of continued debate over Keynesian economics within the Ivory Tower. Another two minutes in the stacks of a shitty branch of the LAPL system reveals two pro-FDR works that question Keynes's influence on FDR or the New Deal.
(FWIW, in the mid-1980s, the way students in one AP U.S. history class learned about Keynesian theory was that it was a theory, and that FDR was a pragmatist when it came to finding solutions during the Great Depression. They were also taught that FDR's effectiveness during that crisis was noteworthy not because his policies worked--we were taught that some did and others didn't--but because his leadership kept tens of millions of Americans from despairing. There was also some mention of an obscure global event--the Second World War--and that America's preparations to participate in it had something to do with .GOVs spending during the 1940s. But then, as this class was offered at a public school in the LAUSD, with a left of center teacher, it was probably an act of political indoctrination that this spending wasn't called "stimulus.")
XngZeRubicon
12-11-2012, 23:02
Completely disagree. You like many others are over thinking this in my opinion. You may think that some think it is counterintuitive to push over the nose in a stall. BUt how many Joe Schmoes out there know that in order to jump a car with a dead battery, you have to pushstart it? Same concept. Build up speed to jump start the engine.
The unemployment rate dropping from 7.9 to 7.7 is the same. The GOP is trying to write a masters thesis to prove how smart they are, when coming up with a message at the 8th grade reading comprehension level will do.
It isn't difficult to get the average citizen to understand the "real" unemployment rate is based on people dropping out of the job search. I am sure a lot of Americans know one of those people. We need to draw a stick figure instead of trying to create a Picasso.
I know 2 4-star generals that are both big brain guys. One of them makes you feel like an idiot when you talk to him, because he is so enamored with himself and all the knowledge he has in his head, he needs to make people feel like idiots in order to make himself feel superior.
The other is just as smart, if not smarter, but is the exact opposite. He has the ability to relate to the people that work for him. Have a conversation where there is an exchange of ideas, even if his ideas are bigger than mine :) where he can pass on his knowledge without making the rest of us feel like idiots.
Who do you think garners the respect of his subordinates? Who do you think inspires his people to think in new ways?
That is the GOPs problem. We are so concerned with trying to convince ourselves how smart we are, that we are completely losing the audience we are trying to get to embrace us. No one likes to hear they are stupid.
And who says these people don't want to learn? There are many many of them that are too tired after working 2-3 jobs to put food on the table, a roof over their kids heads and clothes on their backs to listen to the news, read the newspaper, etc. The come home, want to put their feet up, put on a little reality TV to take their minds off their own problems, and maybe have a beer. How do we reach those folks? How do we take our message and put it in a format that appeals to a wider audience. Not everyone watches Neil Cavuto every night or CNBC. But how many people are likely to flip to Jeapordy once in a while while eating their TV dinner?
I am not saying dumb it down, per se. But we need to start a foundation of knowledge before we can expect people to understand economic philosophy at the level you are used to.
Trapper John has the right idea with what happened in Michigan today. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get the average citizen to understand that what the State Legislature did was not Union Busting. It was simply allowing people to choose if they wanted to pay union dues or not, instead of them being automatically deducted from their paychecks by the state. If the unions are so great, then they will continue to pull in the money with dues paying members. But if they are perceived to be no better than hired thugs, they aren't going to get the money they need to survive and will slowly go away into the dust bin of history. Once again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that once Indiana became a RTW, they started taking away business from MI. So now MI is a RTW, which Midwest state is going to be the 25th RTW in the country? They are dominoes that are begining to fall.
All politics are local, and we as the GOP have forgotten that. We have been busted down to size, and now we need to learn to crawl again before we can walk. We need to learn how to draw a stick figure before we can become the next Picasso. So lets start at the local government level. May it take a few years to get us back to a Conservative Presidency? Yep, but maybe we will be the better for it, because we will have a foundation to stand on, instead of empty words and promises. We need to start practicing what we preach.
Obviously you haven't participated in a ground game with phone calling, going door-to-door, talking to the neighbor or average shopper at the fair or some local event. It's all about stick figures. It's just that their stick figures appealed more than our stick figures did.
I haven't see one Republican act like the "big brain" you've described. I think the bottom line is conservative principles just don't appeal to the majoritiy of Americans anymore. Hard work, personal responsibility, spending less than you make, living within one's means for example don't appeal to the majority.
And I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "real" unemployment.
XngZeRubicon
12-11-2012, 23:14
What are your sources for these generalizations?
A search of ten minutes on Google--including five minutes at The Economist's node on Keynes (http://www.economist.com/topics/john-maynard-keynes)--provides evidence of continued debate over Keynesian economics within the Ivory Tower. Another two minutes in the stacks of a shitty branch of the LAPL system reveals two pro-FDR works that question Keynes's influence on FDR or the New Deal.
(FWIW, in the mid-1980s, the way students in one AP U.S. history class learned about Keynesian theory was that it was a theory, and that FDR was a pragmatist when it came to finding solutions during the Great Depression. They were also taught that FDR's effectiveness during that crisis was noteworthy not because his policies worked--we were taught that some did and others didn't--but because his leadership kept tens of millions of Americans from despairing. There was also some mention of an obscure global event--the Second World War--and that America's preparations to participate in it had something to do with .GOVs spending during the 1940s. But then, as this class was offered at a public school in the LAUSD, with a left of center teacher, it was probably an act of political indoctrination that this spending wasn't called "stimulus.")
Here we are way down in the weeds of obfuscation as usual with you. Try this, Sigaba. Try moving away from the small trees and pulling back and looking at the entire forest of economic theory. Keynsian theory basically boils down to excessive government spending as the solution to a country's economic ills. Supply side theory basically boils down to growing an economy out of the duldrums by cutting taxes and spurring investment by the private sector that leads to job creation. The rest is all in the weeds.
XngZeRubicon
12-11-2012, 23:16
So does that mean the "very wealthy" at some point don't have to pay in as much SS, get a tax credit for what they put in, or are you advocating a shadow progressive tax wherein "The Rich" pay into SS, but aren't allowed to receive it when they are age-eligible, aka "forced charity"?
I would like to see that query taken a step further and ask this:
Is there an economic benefit long-term to a mechanism that would allow even those who are not "very wealthy" - but who now have made their own way to the point where SS is a minor consideration even though they damn sure paid their dues while getting there - to be bought out by the Govt? Paying a bunch of SS over time and having payment of that back decrement a separately existing & self-made umbrella seems like a means test already. In fact, what it really sounds like is:
"...I mean, at some point you've made enough money." - Barack Obama
I'll eventually get back to you two. :D
XngZeRubicon
12-11-2012, 23:31
Completely disagree. You like many others are over thinking this in my opinion. You may think that some think it is counterintuitive to push over the nose in a stall. BUt how many Joe Schmoes out there know that in order to jump a car with a dead battery, you have to pushstart it? Same concept. Build up speed to jump start the engine.
The unemployment rate dropping from 7.9 to 7.7 is the same. The GOP is trying to write a masters thesis to prove how smart they are, when coming up with a message at the 8th grade reading comprehension level will do.
It isn't difficult to get the average citizen to understand the "real" unemployment rate is based on people dropping out of the job search. I am sure a lot of Americans know one of those people. We need to draw a stick figure instead of trying to create a Picasso.
I know 2 4-star generals that are both big brain guys. One of them makes you feel like an idiot when you talk to him, because he is so enamored with himself and all the knowledge he has in his head, he needs to make people feel like idiots in order to make himself feel superior.
The other is just as smart, if not smarter, but is the exact opposite. He has the ability to relate to the people that work for him. Have a conversation where there is an exchange of ideas, even if his ideas are bigger than mine :) where he can pass on his knowledge without making the rest of us feel like idiots.Who do you think garners the respect of his subordinates? Who do you think inspires his people to think in new ways?
That is the GOPs problem. We are so concerned with trying to convince ourselves how smart we are, that we are completely losing the audience we are trying to get to embrace us. No one likes to hear they are stupid.
And who says these people don't want to learn? There are many many of them that are too tired after working 2-3 jobs to put food on the table, a roof over their kids heads and clothes on their backs to listen to the news, read the newspaper, etc. The come home, want to put their feet up, put on a little reality TV to take their minds off their own problems, and maybe have a beer. How do we reach those folks? How do we take our message and put it in a format that appeals to a wider audience. Not everyone watches Neil Cavuto every night or CNBC. But how many people are likely to flip to Jeapordy once in a while while eating their TV dinner?
Actually, the more I read this the more I fail to see what any of it has to do with fixing the pressing fiscal cliff problem , or which way to go with taxes, but hey, it looks like you got a lot of frustration off your chest so cheers to that.
Actually, the more I read this the more I fail to see what any of it has to do with fixing the pressing fiscal cliff problem , or which way to go with taxes, but hey, it looks like you got a lot of frustration off your chest so cheers to that.
You are right, my thoughts don't pertain to the fiscal cliff per se, or to the overall tax problem, or the economy, but are more thoughts on the overall issue of why Republicans can't seem to sell water to a man dying of thirst. If we can't do that, then we have no hope of ever addressing the great economic malaise this country is in, and convincing people that our solutions are better than the ones the Dems are coming up with.
But by all means, lets leave you to pontificate, as those of us that don't have a background in ECON like you do have absolutely nothing constructive to add to the conversation.
ZonieDiver
12-12-2012, 08:34
Here we are way down in the weeds of obfuscation as usual with you. Try this, Sigaba. Try moving away from the small trees and pulling back and looking at the entire forest of economic theory. Keynsian theory basically boils down to excessive government spending as the solution to a country's economic ills. Supply side theory basically boils down to growing an economy out of the duldrums by cutting taxes and spurring investment by the private sector that leads to job creation. The rest is all in the weeds.
So... you DON'T have any sources for your position?:confused:
Obviously you haven't participated in a ground game with phone calling, going door-to-door, talking to the neighbor or average shopper at the fair or some local event. It's all about stick figures. It's just that their stick figures appealed more than our stick figures did.
I haven't see one Republican act like the "big brain" you've described. I think the bottom line is conservative principles just don't appeal to the majoritiy of Americans anymore. Hard work, personal responsibility, spending less than you make, living within one's means for example don't appeal to the majority.
And I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "real" unemployment.
Do you normally make such invalid assumptions? You seem to think that your view of the world is either the only view, or at least the only one that is correct. I worked the ground game in IL and OH. I just didn't come out of it with the same beliefs that you did. I came out of it believing that most people I talked to were hard working individuals who were just trying to provide for their families. We may have had different ideas on how to do that, but in very rare instances did I walk away thinking a person didn't work hard, and thought they should have everything handed to them.
And what I said was "real" unemployment rate. Maybe it was just too late when you read it and you missed a word.
ZonieDiver
12-12-2012, 10:04
Here we are way down in the weeds of obfuscation as usual with you. Try this, Sigaba. Try moving away from the small trees and pulling back and looking at the entire forest of economic theory. Keynsian theory basically boils down to excessive government spending as the solution to a country's economic ills. Supply side theory basically boils down to growing an economy out of the duldrums by cutting taxes and spurring investment by the private sector that leads to job creation. The rest is all in the weeds.
Addendum:
While it's great to dismiss an opponent's words as "obfuscation" and being "way down in the weeds", it might be nice to consider that this is an SF site, and that SF soldiers frequently operate "in the weeds".
Another way of saying someone doesn't look at the forest due to being all in the weeds would be to opine that he (or she) doesn't focus on the "big picture" but gets mired in the "small things". That can be problematic.
However, only looking at the "macro view" without ever delving into the "micro" might also be called "lack of attention to detail" - which can be even more problematic.
"a British philosopher named John Meynard CandyCanes"
" the CandyCane theory"
I see you still think it is a good tactic to marginalize the ideas of your opponents by name-calling. There are some who think this tactic had as much to do with the Rs losing the last race for POTUS as all the "47%".
Before you say, "Yeah, but the other side does it, too" let me remind you, as others have said in different ways, "Yeah, but THEY do it SO much better."
Obviously you haven't participated in a ground game with phone calling, going door-to-door, talking to the neighbor or average shopper at the fair or some local event.
I've done a great deal of that type of activity over the years, including a run for public office myself and working on two congressional campaigns. My experience tends to align more closely with afchic's than it does yours.
For example, here’s one that’s even tough for some conservatives to understand. The unemployment rate dropped last week from 7.9% to 7.7%. Sounds good doesn’t it? Under any other Administration it would’ve been. But because of this President’s pathetic stewardship of the economy, a record number of people have dropped out of the workforce –just finally given up looking - thereby distorting the algorithm used to calculate the formula. In plain terms, only 64% of the workforce is working, the lowest in our history. That .2 drop in the Unemployment rate wasn’t because we’re growing like gangbusters; it’s because a substantial number of people stopped looking and don’t get counted as unemployed.
I disagree. That is NOT so difficult to understand. I used to expose class after class of high school economics' students to that very concept, and they usually grasped it very quickly - even after their years and years of political indoctrination by "academics and the MSM".
Also, when the figures were announced, I was watching the "National Broadcasting of Communism" network's evening news. (Here in Phoenix, I can watch both CBS and NBC/ABC - two but not three). The reporter did an excellent job of presenting the information about people dropping out of the labor force being the main cause for the drop, and not the increase in jobs. (I guess his "Commie Masters" let that one slip by while singing "The Internationale"!)
You've accused others of "getting lost in the weeds" - have you ever considered that perhaps YOU get lost in your own little field of weeds from time to time?
Here we are way down in the weeds of obfuscation as usual with you. Try this, Sigaba. Try moving away from the small trees and pulling back and looking at the entire forest of economic theory. Keynsian theory basically boils down to excessive government spending as the solution to a country's economic ills. Supply side theory basically boils down to growing an economy out of the duldrums by cutting taxes and spurring investment by the private sector that leads to job creation. The rest is all in the weeds.
My question is this: is the problem we are having right now going to get worse if we raise taxes? Or is the problem we are having based on the "unknown", and once the unknown becomes known, we can begin to deal with it. Even if taxes are raised (which I am not advocating) at least it would take the uncertainty out of the equation and allow small business owners to make a plan.
It seems to me, from what I have read that the real problem most buiness owners are confronting is uncertainty.
I think the bottom line is conservative principles just don't appeal to the majoritiy of Americans anymore. Hard work, personal responsibility, spending less than you make, living within one's means for example don't appeal to the majority.
The implication in that statement is that anyone who is not a 'conservative' (read: Republican) cannot possibly be living by any principles that encourage their valuing hard work, accepting personal responsibility for their decisions, or living within their means.
If that's the case, that is a very LARGE assumption, and I'm not sure you can make a case for it just yet, if ever.
Richard :munchin
How Much Taxation Would Fund Current Spending?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/how_much_taxation_would_fund_current_spending.html
"To best understand this spending aspect of the current budget negotiations in Washington, we must answer ............................."
Interesting, simple view of taxes and spending.
Badger52
12-12-2012, 10:58
It seems to me, from what I have read that the real problem most buiness owners are confronting is uncertainty.Ya know ma'am, that pretty much sums up the ground truth for the small sample of actual humans I know locally. These are folks I've known at least a couple decades, Mom & Pop, who set off on their own not to get rich, but just wanted "maybe something just a little better than bein' a wage slave." (putting thumb & index finger 1/16" apart)
Maybe a daughter-in-law fills in on a counter once in awhile, and they're employing 6-10 others. They have some loyal folks too they'd like to give a raise to, or even offer a small slice of the business. They aren't sophisticated economists, don't have brokers, they don't have PACE and a zillion courses-of-action for contingency 'D' -- they look me dead in the eye, with furrowed brow, almost embarassed, and just say, "We just don't know..."
And they are worried because their ledger is still likely to make them part of the evil landed-gentry. It tears me up because some of these folks are long-time family friends who thought they were doin' the right thing, along with church, supporting the Boy Scouts & the local hockey team, etc.
Second-guessing is a heavy burden; makes 'em feel still enslaved to the uncertainty when what they really want is operational latitude.
Trapper John
12-12-2012, 11:19
It seems to me, from what I have read that the real problem most buiness owners are confronting is uncertainty.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! The lack of investment capital/cash-flow in the economy is all about UNCERTAINTY. That is killing innovation and job growth. I do not think I have ever sensed so much uncertainty and therefore risk aversion as I do now. And that is from an "in the weeds" perspective. Once again I need to pounce on my hot button issue and say its about LEADERSHIP! And we have none on either side. Just MHO.
As Ross Perot might say in a TV ad, "It's revenues, stupid - not just taxes!"
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Dozer523
12-12-2012, 11:31
TJ, let me take another approach to our communication challenge.
John Meynard CandyCanes
CandyCane theory
This is our dilemma today. Many conservatives are saying we need to change the PR technique. But how do you teach people something they don’t want to learn?communication challenge is right!
I looked all over the web and I can find no references anyone named John M CandyCanes or to the "CandyCane Theory"
Trapper John
12-12-2012, 11:33
Addendum:
While it's great to dismiss an opponent's words as "obfuscation" and being "way down in the weeds", it might be nice to consider that this is an SF site, and that SF soldiers frequently operate "in the weeds". Thanks for pointing that out. Being able to take a Big Picture and then fill in the blanks with ground truth intelligence is absolutely essential for survival and success. This applies across the board irrespective of the mission!
I've done a great deal of that type of activity over the years, including a run for public office myself and working on two congressional campaigns. Very interesting! I will send you an email on that one later in the week. Want to hear more.
Talk to you later, Zonie.
Badger52
12-12-2012, 16:06
LINK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9738178/Frances-Jean-Marc-Ayrault-slams-flight-of-the-greedy-rich.html)
France's Jean-Marc Ayrault slams flight of the 'greedy rich'
France's prime minister has slammed wealthy citizens fleeing the country's punitive tax on high incomes as greedy profiteers seeking to "become even richer".
.....
These individuals are leaving "because they want to get even richer," he said. "We cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity," he added.
:rolleyes:
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 16:46
to sell water to a man dying of thirst. .[/COLOR]
Hey, I'd love to hear the compelling argument. I don't think this "thirsty" stick figure sells very well, though. You've got a President standing at the bully pulpit talking about the 98% vs. the 2% stick figure. You'll have to do a lot better than that. Not just liberals but according to polls, a lot of Republicans are falling for that one.
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 16:52
So... you DON'T have any sources for your position?:confused:
Which of the hundreds of books, journals, periodicals, and newspaper editions read over the past 25 years would you like me to list? As I've said throughout this thread, my very strong opinions on the subject come from a synthesis of many sources over time, including my 15 years of business experience.
I'm not sure what your point is, but if you're looking for a good source, read the Wall Street Journal everyday. Or better yet, the London Financial Times. The Economist is a little too liberal for my tastes. Or read books by Thomas Sewell. The few times I've read him, he seems to be saying pretty much the same things I've been thinking.
You'll have to do a lot better than that.
Which of the hundreds of books, journals, periodicals, and newspaper editions read over the past 25 years would you like me to list?
Heed a fellow guest.
Do not just post in "your" threads.
Use the search button.
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 16:59
Addendum:
While it's great to dismiss an opponent's words as "obfuscation" and being "way down in the weeds", it might be nice to consider that this is an SF site, and that SF soldiers frequently operate "in the weeds".
Another way of saying someone doesn't look at the forest due to being all in the weeds would be to opine that he (or she) doesn't focus on the "big picture" but gets mired in the "small things". That can be problematic.
However, only looking at the "macro view" without ever delving into the "micro" might also be called "lack of attention to detail" - which can be even more problematic.
I see you still think it is a good tactic to marginalize the ideas of your opponents by name-calling. There are some who think this tactic had as much to do with the Rs losing the last race for POTUS as all the "47%".
Before you say, "Yeah, but the other side does it, too" let me remind you, as others have said in different ways, "Yeah, but THEY do it SO much better."
I've done a great deal of that type of activity over the years, including a run for public office myself and working on two congressional campaigns. My experience tends to align more closely with afchic's than it does yours.
I disagree. That is NOT so difficult to understand. I used to expose class after class of high school economics' students to that very concept, and they usually grasped it very quickly - even after their years and years of political indoctrination by "academics and the MSM".
Also, when the figures were announced, I was watching the "National Broadcasting of Communism" network's evening news. (Here in Phoenix, I can watch both CBS and NBC/ABC - two but not three). The reporter did an excellent job of presenting the information about people dropping out of the labor force being the main cause for the drop, and not the increase in jobs. (I guess his "Commie Masters" let that one slip by while singing "The Internationale"!)
You've accused others of "getting lost in the weeds" - have you ever considered that perhaps YOU get lost in your own little field of weeds from time to time?
I do understand how important attention to detail is for SF. I know it's paramount. But let me ask you, are we fixing an SF problem or a national problem so abstract that there’s not one thing you can touch or hold so as to help understand the issue? I submit each one requires different analysis.
The CandyCane metaphor was meant to be a name close to Keynes and it happens to be Christmas. What's mean about that?
Regarding the 7.7% rate, I bet if I walk out the door and ask the first 50 people I see to explain it, they won't be able to. Maybe 1 or 2 could.
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 17:03
Once again I need to pounce on my hot button issue and say its about LEADERSHIP! And we have none on either side. Just MHO.
TJ, you keep mentioning leadership. There’s only one thing a real leader can say. Because there’s only one irrefutable truth. That leader would say that “to solve this country’s economic problems, every single one of us will need to feel pain. Every single one of us will have to feel the loss of something to right the ship. That may mean loss of an entitlement, or loss of a deduction, or it may even mean loss of a job.” That leader would have to speak with no sugar coating and no pitting people against each other; just the cold hard truth. That leader would say, “and if you aren’t feeling some kind of pain, then I haven’t completed the plan.”
The problem is… there is no such leader. And the problem is…… Americans want it both ways. They want the massive debt cut, but they want none of it to come from them. I don’t think a politician exists that will dare be honest enough to tell them it will come from them and everyone.
To me the solution to our problem is blatantly obvious since there’s example after example of it working. We should FIRST cut spending, which will bring us back to healthy financial fundamentals, and then we cut tax rate, because that’s how we get the growth needed to counter the loss of jobs from debt cutting. Estonia is the latest example of how well this has worked.
But this is not going to happen under this President. Tax rates will go up. I have no idea how much spending will be cut because there isn’t much discussion going on in DC on this topic.
For President Obama, his goal is more than just an economic one. It’s a very cynical political goal. He said he’d do the cuts if Republicans delivered revenue. So Boehner offered $800 billion in revenue from deductions and the like. But Obama revealed his hand by admitting he doesn’t care about getting revenue THAT way. He wants to be able to obliterate the only remaining thing that defines conservatives which is THE core principal of not raising taxes (my definition is tax rates). He knows that once we agree to raising tax rates, we’re no longer conservatives. And that’s the end of the Republican Party. The end of a force that can put the breaks on his agenda to keep growing government. Which is his real goal.
My personal opinion is Republicans should negotiate in any number of areas to prevent going over the cliff, but not go along with raising tax rates. Let Democrats raise the taxes and own what happens to the economy as a result.
They continue to posture around the question of taxes, but regardless of what they decide, the revenue side of the equation only brings in enough to run the government a few days. Spending is our problem. Not revenues.
The few times I've read him, he seems to be saying pretty much the same things I've been thinking.
I feel the same away about G. J. Schaefer after reading these posts.
Richard :munchin
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 17:10
Do you normally make such invalid assumptions? You seem to think that your view of the world is either the only view, or at least the only one that is correct. I worked the ground game in IL and OH. I just didn't come out of it with the same beliefs that you did. I came out of it believing that most people I talked to were hard working individuals who were just trying to provide for their families. We may have had different ideas on how to do that, but in very rare instances did I walk away thinking a person didn't work hard, and thought they should have everything handed to them.
And what I said was "real" unemployment rate. Maybe it was just too late when you read it and you missed a word.
In all the time I spent doing grassroots in the 90s, the debate revolved around which candidate could produce more jobs, or save jobs, or save benefits, or strong on defense, and social issues but never a discussion about whether they worked hard or thought they should have things handed to them.
And fyi, the monthy Unemployment number the press reports such as last week's 7.7% is not the "real" unemployment number.
ZonieDiver
12-12-2012, 17:53
Which of the hundreds of books, journals, periodicals, and newspaper editions read over the past 25 years would you like me to list? As I've said throughout this thread, my very strong opinions on the subject come from a synthesis of many sources over time, including my 15 years of business experience.
I'm not sure what your point is, but if you're looking for a good source, read the Wall Street Journal everyday. Or better yet, the London Financial Times. The Economist is a little too liberal for my tastes. Or read books by Thomas Sewell. The few times I've read him, he seems to be saying pretty much the same things I've been thinking.
Which ones? Hell, I don't know. I'll tell you what - YOU pick three or four and surprise me.
My point? Crap, I didn't know we had to have a point here. I thought a very narrow view would suffice. I think your smugness knows no end.
Are you insinuating that I DO NOT read such weighty sources of information? Personally, I think the WSJ is a shadow of its former self. LFT is a bit too far to the right for me. The Economist is more my style. I do a lot of reading, as well as having an open mind, or if you will a "Right-to-think shop" as opposed to a "Closed shop".
ZonieDiver
12-12-2012, 18:10
I do understand how important attention to detail is for SF. I know it's paramount. But let me ask you, are we fixing an SF problem or a national problem so abstract that there’s not one thing you can touch or hold so as to help understand the issue? I submit each one requires different analysis.
The CandyCane metaphor was meant to be a name close to Keynes and it happens to be Christmas. What's mean about that?
Regarding the 7.7% rate, I bet if I walk out the door and ask the first 50 people I see to explain it, they won't be able to. Maybe 1 or 2 could.
How did you come by your knowledge of "how important attention to detail is for SF"? I must have missed you on the infil into Occupied Pineland.
Are you saying that a "national problem so abstract that there's not one thing you can touch or hold to help you understand the issue" is not similar to many of the things that SF personnel consider? MY POINT here is that attention to detail is important in all things, and in all types of analysis.
(Besides, the "so abstract that..." is YOUR argument, not mine. Though economics delves into the abstract, a lot of the basic principles are readily understandable. I've made them so for 100's of kids for a couple decades. Few fail to grasp the basics.)
As to walking out the door and asking the first 50 people... I'll wait for your results.
As to the "CandyCane" comments being "mean" - that's not what I said. You seem to do this repeatedly in references to your opponents. I was asking if you thought this was a sound tactic, opposed to a way to have people "turn off and tune out" what you're saying. I submit it is the latter.
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 19:16
How did you come by your knowledge of "how important attention to detail is for SF"? I must have missed you on the infil into Occupied Pineland.
Are you saying that a "national problem so abstract that there's not one thing you can touch or hold to help you understand the issue" is not similar to many of the things that SF personnel consider? MY POINT here is that attention to detail is important in all things, and in all types of analysis.
(Besides, the "so abstract that..." is YOUR argument, not mine. Though economics delves into the abstract, a lot of the basic principles are readily understandable. I've made them so for 100's of kids for a couple decades. Few fail to grasp the basics.)
As to walking out the door and asking the first 50 people... I'll wait for your results.
As to the "CandyCane" comments being "mean" - that's not what I said. You seem to do this repeatedly in references to your opponents. I was asking if you thought this was a sound tactic, opposed to a way to have people "turn off and tune out" what you're saying. I submit it is the latter.
I thought it was pretty well known that attention to detail was important for SF. Here let me google it real fast; it's probably even on the internet:
SEAL Ethos
United States Navy SEAL
In times of war or uncertainty there is a special breed of warrior ready to answer our Nation’s call. A common man with uncommon desire to succeed. Forged by adversity, he stands alongside America’s finest special operations forces to serve his country, the American people, and protect their way of life.I am that man........
(I've deleted paragraphs to save space.)
.......My Trident is a symbol of honor and heritage. Bestowed upon me by the We demand discipline. We expect innovation. The lives of my teammates and the success of our mission depend on me - my technical skill, tactical proficiency, and attention to detail. My training is never complete.
=====================
As for the abstract analogy, are you saying everything in SF is abstract like everthing with this topic is? Of course there's an abstract part but there's plenty of tangible areas such as physical status and equipment. One is completely abstract. The other is not.
--------------------
When you say basic economic principles are the same, I respectfully disagree. It's the whole point I've been making in this thread. It depends on what your philosophical bent is when defining the basic principles. That's why I've menitioned Keynes so many times.
________________________
There's no need for me to walk out the door, I already know most people can't answer it. I monitor this type of thing the way others might monitor the wx forecast.
---------------------------------------
And finally, I think referring to someone as smug and condescending that they couldn't possibly know an SF trait falls more into the category than CandyCanes, but all that matters to me is the quality of your argument.
ETA: And to be very honest, from the posts I've read by you, I don't think I'd agree with your interpretation of "basic economic principles." I'm just saying it's different, not a value judgment.
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 19:20
Which ones? Hell, I don't know. I'll tell you what - YOU pick three or four and surprise me.
My point? Crap, I didn't know we had to have a point here. I thought a very narrow view would suffice. I think your smugness knows no end.
Are you insinuating that I DO NOT read such weighty sources of information? Personally, I think the WSJ is a shadow of its former self. LFT is a bit too far to the right for me. The Economist is more my style. I do a lot of reading, as well as having an open mind, or if you will a "Right-to-think shop" as opposed to a "Closed shop".
It's a serious question.:D I'm trying to figure out if you want to know to see how I think, or want to know what I consider the best book, or to know how many? There is no one book. As I've said, I've taken a little bit from everything I've read and never 100% from any book, so if it's to see how I think, listing a book or 2 or 3 doesn't serve that purpose.
Paragrouper
12-12-2012, 19:43
I thought it was pretty well known that attention to detail was important for SF. Here let me google it real fast; it's probably even on the internet:
SEAL Ethos
United States Navy SEAL
In times of war or uncertainty there is a special breed of warrior ready to answer our Nation’s call. A common man with uncommon desire to succeed. Forged by adversity, he stands alongside America’s finest special operations forces to serve his country, the American people, and protect their way of life.I am that man........
Maybe I'm a little nitpicky, but we're not seals.
I hope you shoot more accurately than you google.
Trapper John
12-12-2012, 19:57
Maybe I'm a little nitpicky, but we're not seals.
Oh those pesky details :D
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 20:03
Maybe I'm a little nitpicky, but we're not seals.
I hope you shoot more accurately than you google.
Touche' Paragrouper. This is Professional SOLDIERS. :D I assumed every service was represented on here.
Well then do you consider Rangers SOF? If so, how about the Army Ranger I worked for in Iraq and the other Army Rangers on his staff? Or how about some of the former SF turned contractor that provided personal security detail for my trips throughout Iraq. Or maybe some of the Marine SOF this same team worked with when we had to fly out to Anbar Province?
Trapper John
12-12-2012, 20:09
Touche' Paragrouper. This is Professional SOLDIERS. :D I assumed every service was represented on here.
Well then do you consider Rangers SF? If so, how about the Army Ranger I worked for in Iraq and the other Army Rangers on his staff? Or how about some of the former SF turned contractor that provided personal security detail for my trips throughout Iraq. Or maybe some of the Marine SF this same team worked with when we had to fly out to Anbar Province?
XZR, I would quickly edit this to change SF to SOF. Two different things. I am going to "duck" now because I think I hear incoming. ;)
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 20:12
So does that mean the "very wealthy" at some point don't have to pay in as much SS, get a tax credit for what they put in, or are you advocating a shadow progressive tax wherein "The Rich" pay into SS, but aren't allowed to receive it when they are age-eligible, aka "forced charity"?
I would like to see that query taken a step further and ask this:
Is there an economic benefit long-term to a mechanism that would allow even those who are not "very wealthy" - but who now have made their own way to the point where SS is a minor consideration even though they damn sure paid their dues while getting there - to be bought out by the Govt? Paying a bunch of SS over time and having payment of that back decrement a separately existing & self-made umbrella seems like a means test already. In fact, what it really sounds like is:
"...I mean, at some point you've made enough money." - Barack Obama
And to finally answer your question, Razor, means testing SS recipients IS stealing. But truth be told, I consider this whole mess we're in to be stealing from all of us who've been disciplined our whole lives...worked hard, saved, lived within our means,....who are pulling the wagon for more and more undisciplined slackers (not counting those who legitimately need to be pulled). If you read my post to TJ about a real leader standing up and admitting that everyone will feel pain, we're all going to feel pain, either voluntarily or involuntarily. My idea of means testing would be a fairly high bar -like that idiot Buffett.
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 20:17
XZR, I would quickly edit this to change SF to SOF. Two different things. I am going to "duck" know because I think I hear incoming. ;)
Thanks, TJ. See there....I admit when there's something I get wrong. :D
And those would be fair hits by the way.....I have my flak jacket ready.
ZonieDiver
12-12-2012, 20:25
Touche' Paragrouper. This is Professional SOLDIERS. :D I assumed every service was represented on here.
Well then do you consider Rangers SF <I deleted your edit suggested by TrapperJohn>? If so, how about the Army Ranger I worked for in Iraq and the other Army Rangers on his staff? Or how about some of the former SF turned contractor that provided personal security detail for my trips throughout Iraq. Or maybe some of the Marine SOF this same team worked with when we had to fly out to Anbar Province?
I thought it was pretty well known that attention to detail was important for SF. Here let me google it real fast; it's probably even on the internet:
SEAL Ethos
United States Navy SEAL
In times of war or uncertainty there is a special breed of warrior ready to answer our Nation’s call. A common man with uncommon desire to succeed. Forged by adversity, he stands alongside America’s finest special operations forces to serve his country, the American people, and protect their way of life.I am that man........
Oh, my! I must admit that I have waited a long time to say this to you. You barged in here and weighed in on threads without doing due diligence in reviewing past threads (as some repeatedly suggested you do). You never want to elucidate sources for some of your points, just kind of saying "trust me". IMHO, because your views fit the narrative of many here, you have been given a 'pass' that others whose views do not fit that narrative are NOT given.
So...
Read more. Post less.
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 20:35
Oh, my! I must admit that I have waited a long time to say this to you. You barged in here and weighed in on threads without doing due diligence in reviewing past threads (as some repeatedly suggested you do). You never want to elucidate sources for some of your points, just kind of saying "trust me". IMHO, because your views fit the narrative of many here, you have been given a 'pass' that others whose views do not fit that narrative are NOT given.
So...
Read more. Post less.
Well, that's not exactly true, ZD. I've been doing reading for a very long time. I still get SF and SOF mixed up, no matter how much I read, and I've never claimed to be an expert on that subject. As far as Sigaba's suggestions, I pretty much see nothing but double standards in his suggestions and his posts, no matter how much he thinks he tracks what threads I read and don't read.
And are you sure you aren't asking me to post less on this thread because you're not winning the argument about taxes? In fact, I'm still waiting to see what you think about the very title of this thread.
So...... you've never said....should we raise taxes or cut them?
XngZeRubicon
12-12-2012, 20:43
Oh, my! I must admit that I have waited a long time to say this to you. You barged in here and weighed in on threads without doing due diligence in reviewing past threads (as some repeatedly suggested you do). You never want to elucidate sources for some of your points, just kind of saying "trust me". IMHO, because your views fit the narrative of many here, you have been given a 'pass' that others whose views do not fit that narrative are NOT given.
So...
Read more. Post less.
Oh, and I skimmed by it but just went back and noticed your point about sources. Here, I'll reach to my bookshelf and give you a few titles:
Restoring Our Competitive Edge - Hayes
International Economics - Paul Krugman (whom I can't stand)
The Economics Problem Solver -Staff of Research and Education Assoc.
Monetary Economics - McCallum
I'm not sure what you're going to gather from this. I read things from the far left (Krugman) to the far right (Ron Paul).
XZR
You appear to be a one trick pony.
Starting to get old.
ZonieDiver
12-12-2012, 21:06
Well, that's not exactly true, ZD. I've been doing reading for a very long time. I still get SF and SOF mixed up, no matter how much I read, and I've never claimed to be an expert on that subject. As far as Sigaba's suggestions, I pretty much see nothing but double standards in his suggestions and his posts, no matter how much he thinks he tracks what threads I read and don't read.
And are you sure you aren't asking me to post less on this thread because you're not winning the argument about taxes? In fact, I'm still waiting to see what you think about the very title of this thread.
So...... you've never said....should we raise taxes or cut them?
Those who've read my posts in threads on this site for years should know my feelings about the original topic of this thread. I tend to follow the ideas of the man I lovingly, not mockingly, call "Uncle Milty". We don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem. I have no idea how you can come to the conclusion that I was 'losing' an argument I was not having.
My divergence from you stems in your tactics. IMHO, you personify the reason the Rs lost the last election for POTUS. Your opponents are morons, thieves, lazy, or have some other faulty traits. It cannot possibly be that the Rs are unable to communicate their position effectively.
Your two posts (before you edited them) were NOT slips of the tongue or confusion about SF vs SOF (and if they were - it is still a serious lapse of SA in a site for Quiet Professionals). Have you spent some time even reading the opeining page of this site? You quoted SEALs, asked if Rangers were SF, and talked about Marine SF. You say you are not an expert on this. That is a step in the right direction. Those are not mistakes even a non-expert would make. To me, it illustrates a cavalier approach to this site and those who dwell here.
I don't give a rat's patootie what Sigaba asks you or doesn't. He's not the only one who as expressed concern about your generalizatons. I don't always agree with Sigaba, or others, but do appreciate when they take the time to give a source for a particular piece of detailed information they throw out. You got called on that - by Sigaba this time - and simply blew it off. Now you throw out four general sources without tying them to the particular information you stated.
I was not talking about posting less and reading more in THIS thread. I meant in general. You can say you've read a lot in this forum, but I seriously doubt it. It takes a long time. I still peruse old threads, and re-read ones I posted in. I post a lot, but read more... and learn a lot.
My "read more - post less" was not an order. I don't have that authority. It was, however, a heartfelt suggestion that I think would greatly benefit you in your interactions here.
My "read more - post less" was not an order. I don't have that authority. It was, however, a heartfelt suggestion that I think would greatly benefit you in your interactions here.
XngZ, I would consider it a smart suggestion and following it would be a prudent course of action.
Bluntly - take a break!
I've been doing reading for a very long time. I still get SF and SOF mixed up, no matter how much I read, and I've never claimed to be an expert on that subject.
If that's your disclaimer for something as easily understood as the difference between SF ("Green Berets") and SOF (All other Spec Ops Forces + SF) after "...doing reading for a very long time," then I have to seriously wonder how you cannot be confused over the far more complex topics you have so voluminously pontificated on in this and similar threads after all that reading you claim to have done about them as well.
IMO, you come across a lot like the title character in the first movie to introduce general audiences to color technology when it was released on 25 Aug 1939.
When we return to Kansas, XZR, don't call us...we'll call you.
Richard :munchin
In all the time I spent doing grassroots in the 90s, the debate revolved around which candidate could produce more jobs, or save jobs, or save benefits, or strong on defense, and social issues but never a discussion about whether they worked hard or thought they should have things handed to them.
And fyi, the monthy Unemployment number the press reports such as last week's 7.7% is not the "real" unemployment number.
As my father would say, "No shit Sherlock". Do you even bother to READ others posts?
Trapper John
12-13-2012, 07:37
XZR - I told you that I heard "incoming"! I think you are bracketed and it looks like its "fire for effect" time. Good luck :D
Dozer523
12-13-2012, 07:46
XZR - I told you that I heard "incoming"! I think you are bracketed and it looks like its "fire for effect" time. Good luck :D
:confused:Maybe you should define those terms. :confused:
Entire post
FWIW, I agree. MOO: Part of the reason why the R's lost is that they let the D's define what a conservative is, putting the R's on the constant defensive, and letting the dialog descend to inane name calling. With the D's, you either march in lockstep, or you are out(case in point, Cory Booker's remarks about Bain, and the subsequent "hostage apology" clip), so they have no problem keeping the message consistent. The R's on the other hand have many stripes and colors, which contributes to good discussion and debate, also contributes to the lack of a coherent message that the general populace can understand. Two conservatives, three opinions or something like that.
XZR, Keynes was one of many who pushed for government spending, but I believe(Sig, correct me if I am wrong) it was Gilbert, Tugwell[1] and the rest of FDR's "Brain Trust" that pushed the part socialist, part fascist "Planned Economy" model, which came with massive Fed. spending.
[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=CVqTXJjmtmUC&pg=PA315&lpg=PA315&dq=richard+v+gilbert+%22we+owe+it+to+ourselves%22&source=bl&ots=0cwZGxNY2a&sig=uhVmtcpX9ZpRYfK2ux295s3Su0g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LB_KUIe5CYKg8gSJ04GABQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=richard%20v%20gilbert%20%22we%20owe%20it%20to%20 ourselves%22&f=false
ZonieDiver
12-13-2012, 13:16
MOO: Part of the reason why the R's lost is that they let the D's define what a conservative is, putting the R's on the constant defensive, and letting the dialog descend to inane name calling. With the D's, you either march in lockstep, or you are out(case in point, Cory Booker's remarks about Bain, and the subsequent "hostage apology" clip), so they have no problem keeping the message consistent. The R's on the other hand have many stripes and colors, which contributes to good discussion and debate, also contributes to the lack of a coherent message that the general populace can understand. Two conservatives, three opinions or something like that.
I give that "Three C's"! (Cogent, Concise, and Correct!:D)
Thanks for the well-stated analysis.
I give that "Three C's"! (Cogent, Concise, and Correct!:D)
Thanks for the well-stated analysis.
Thanks! :D
Trapper John
12-13-2012, 14:15
:confused:Maybe you should define those terms. :confused:
For XZRs benefit (not yours Dozer, you know exactly what that means). Incoming = artillery, mortars and is a metaphor for critical posts; Bracketed = One round short, one round long; Fire for effect = instructions from the FO that the last round is on target. Continue firing.)
Dozer523
12-13-2012, 21:52
For XZRs benefit (not yours Dozer, you know exactly what that means). Incoming = artillery, mortars and is a metaphor for critical posts; Bracketed = One round short, one round long; Fire for effect = instructions from the FO that the last round is on target. Continue firing.)yeah, shoulda used pink i was being mean.
Trapper John
12-14-2012, 08:25
yeah, shoulda used pink i was being mean.
Naaaaah! :D
:confused:Maybe you should define those terms. :confused:
Because some ffolkes are not as well read as they claim to be.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I guess setting the mark as to who the "evil rich" are depends on how far down the tubes you country is.
The folks in Greece are now setting it at $55,000.
Greeks earning 42,000 Euros to be taxed at top rate under plan
Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20342042/greeks-earning-42000-euros-to-be-taxed-at-top-rate#ixzz2F42nCZsO
"ATHENS, Greece (AP) — Greeks earning more than €42,000 ($55,000) per year will now be taxed at a new top rate of 42 percent, under a major new tax reform bill submitted to the country's parliament late Thursday.
Under the new guidelines, the 42 percent top tax rate and earnings threshold replaces the previous level of 45 percent for incomes above €100,000 ($130,770). The new rate is part of a simplification of the country's tax rules. There are currently eight tax bands ranging from 18 percent to 45 percent. These will be replaced by three tax rates: 22 percent, 32 percent and 42 percent..........."
Badger52
12-14-2012, 16:30
I guess setting the mark as to who the "evil rich" are depends on how far down the tubes you country is.
The folks in Greece are now setting it at $55,000.
Greeks earning 42,000 Euros to be taxed at top rate under plan
Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20342042/greeks-earning-42000-euros-to-be-taxed-at-top-rate#ixzz2F42nCZsO
"ATHENS, Greece (AP) — Greeks earning more than €42,000 ($55,000) per year will now be taxed at a new top rate of 42 percent, under a major new tax reform bill submitted to the country's parliament late Thursday.
Under the new guidelines, the 42 percent top tax rate and earnings threshold replaces the previous level of 45 percent for incomes above €100,000 ($130,770). The new rate is part of a simplification of the country's tax rules. There are currently eight tax bands ranging from 18 percent to 45 percent. These will be replaced by three tax rates: 22 percent, 32 percent and 42 percent..........."Interesting. I didn't crunch every number from here (http://livingingreece.gr/2007/07/29/examples-of-jobs-and-salaries-in-athens/), but a glance at their average annual of about $12K (less than 22% of that evil plateau that's supposed to fix everything) also shows that they recently revised downward the zero tax level under their austerity measures. That average was revised downward to about only $5K, so that more people will now also be caught up in their simplified tax code.
Further, it would seem that as companies let go (expensive) professionals for cheaper/less-talented labor just to "get by" - and with it that professional's tax contribution - really, ya change some integer values across the board and there's alot of similarity.
Payroll taxes amount to 28 percent paid by the employer and 16 percent by the employee, but half of all companies in Greece hire workers off the books in the private sector and pay neither tax nor insurance contributions.
Oh, frack! Almost forgot it was about Greece. (Although their public sector workers get some serious severance chutes.)
XngZeRubicon
12-15-2012, 20:54
Those who've read my posts in threads on this site for years should know my feelings about the original topic of this thread. I tend to follow the ideas of the man I lovingly, not mockingly, call "Uncle Milty". We don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem. I have no idea how you can come to the conclusion that I was 'losing' an argument I was not having.
My divergence from you stems in your tactics. IMHO, you personify the reason the Rs lost the last election for POTUS. Your opponents are morons, thieves, lazy, or have some other faulty traits. It cannot possibly be that the Rs are unable to communicate their position effectively.
Your two posts (before you edited them) were NOT slips of the tongue or confusion about SF vs SOF (and if they were - it is still a serious lapse of SA in a site for Quiet Professionals). Have you spent some time even reading the opeining page of this site? You quoted SEALs, asked if Rangers were SF, and talked about Marine SF. You say you are not an expert on this. That is a step in the right direction. Those are not mistakes even a non-expert would make. To me, it illustrates a cavalier approach to this site and those who dwell here.
I don't give a rat's patootie what Sigaba asks you or doesn't. He's not the only one who as expressed concern about your generalizatons. I don't always agree with Sigaba, or others, but do appreciate when they take the time to give a source for a particular piece of detailed information they throw out. You got called on that - by Sigaba this time - and simply blew it off. Now you throw out four general sources without tying them to the particular information you stated.
I was not talking about posting less and reading more in THIS thread. I meant in general. You can say you've read a lot in this forum, but I seriously doubt it. It takes a long time. I still peruse old threads, and re-read ones I posted in. I post a lot, but read more... and learn a lot.
My "read more - post less" was not an order. I don't have that authority. It was, however, a heartfelt suggestion that I think would greatly benefit you in your interactions here.
I guess it won’t be any surprise to you, but I disagree with a great deal of what you’ve said on this thread, including calling me out about sources. The one time I got very detailed, it was my post about Stockman, and I posted a link with it. Most of my other posts are a synthesis of 25 years of work. The books I listed aren’t random; they’re part of the long bibliography.
The reason I was drawn to this thread in the first place was to correct the anti-Reagan direction it appeared to be taking back when I made my first post on the thread. So back to the big picture, the fiscal cliff, and what to do about taxes, here’s a Forbes article that spells out the most successful economic expansion in the history of this country – the results of Reagan economic policies.
It should help serve as a guide for those citizens wondering how to resolve the fiscal cliff.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
Reagonomics vs. Obamanomics by Peter Ferrara
In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies. As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics. That prediction seems to be on track.
When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.
President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:
1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.
2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.
4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.Cont'd on next post.
XngZeRubicon
12-15-2012, 20:55
Cont'd Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics
These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.
During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.
In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:
“We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.
GratefulCitizen
12-15-2012, 21:31
Entire post.
While I do agree that Reagan's policies were better than Obama's are, it should be noted that Reagan's benefited from favorable demographics and Obama's is suffering from unfavorable demographics.
The government is not the cause of everything.
http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2012/09/11/a-decade-of-volatility-demographics-debt-and-deflation.aspx
The reason I was drawn to this thread in the first place was to correct the anti-Reagan direction it appeared to be taking back when I made my first post on the thread.Your comment is an incredible admission of political bias. IMO, it calls into question even more your ability to examine evidence dispassionately as well as your ability to discuss complex issues credibly.
What follows is an example of what I mean.The Reagan years were irrefutably a reflection of deft economic and foreign policies, yet it's unbelievable how many people don't know their history. The "deftness" of the Reagan administration's foreign and economic policies are a matter of historiographical debate and will likely remain so for decades to come. The missing pieces include classified documents that remain unavailable for responsible students of that era to read, to analyze, to contextualize, and to debate. The topics of debate include the cost of America's rearmament during the Reagan presidency, its effectiveness relative to other available options based upon what was contemporaneously known, and the long term consequences--both anticipated and unanticipated--of rearmament on the planet's history.
This debate is going to continue regardless of the "corrections" of a self described expert on economics who is admittedly motivated by ideology.
Last hard class
12-16-2012, 01:11
It’s Saturday and I’m feeling feisty. May as well break cover.
Some random thoughts.
Trapper John: I am glad you tried to meld all the similar threads.
At first I thought all these posts were just some folks going through the 5 stages of loss. But somehow you all have ( except Dozer) group thunk yourselves a fairly bizarre concept.
I have never lost a fight literally or figuratively where upon reflection, I determined it was because my opponent was stupid. If that is the best you can come up with, get used to being on the losing side in the next election.
Badger: C’mon man!
I don’t want my taxes increased anymore than the next guy. But this picture you're painting of the poor small businessman is absurd. There are many small business owner’s just scraping by as you note. But they are not going to get hit with the “rich tax”. You do realize that the fiscal cliff tax rate is for taxable income right? The value of a business owner’s compensation is usually much higher than their taxable income. Most small businesses are flow through companies designed to minimize taxes while taking full advantage of all deductions. If your business plan anticipates you maximizing your deductions to the fullest and still having more than $250,000 in taxable income ( see a CPA and a tax attorney to be sure), try this novel concept: Invest the difference back into the company in a way that will increase top line performance . Why put your money in a CD that pays less than 2%? Increase your wealth by increasing the value of your company. Oh yeah, and help grow the economy at the same time.
As a business person you think I am sitting around with my thumb up my ass waiting to see if my personal tax rate goes up? Business is a competition. Innovate within the rules. I may reign in expenditures because the economic outlook is cloudy, but not because my personal income tax may go up. Only someone like a consultant would think that way, because they usually are not entrepreneurs.
Trapper john:
I don’t believe the 47% stole the election. It was handed to them. IMO the great idea of never compromise cost the election. There were multiple ways that the right could have won. The easiest was immigration. Pragmatically speaking, unless you bring back the jack boots, the majority of the 30 million illegal’s are here to stay. Knowing this, why not get some political capital in trade.
Taxes and spending:
I think you guys only have this argument half right. The Dems are trying to destroy the capitalist’s way of life. But it is the Right who have let them. One word sums it up. Appeasement. It seems the never compromise adage is good for every argument except taxes. The tax code in it’s current form, was written by and for the wealthy. Over the years, like Chinese water torture, the right has slowly allowed more and more people to stop paying taxes all in the name of preserving the wealth for the wealthy. I will trade you a child credit for my deductions any day. Low income credit for lower capital gains? Done. Do you think they care that 47% don’t pay federal income tax? They would let it go to 57% and stick the remaining 41% with the bill no problem. The usual tactics won’t work this time though. However, I suspect they will move the top rate higher than 250,000.
I do believe we need to increase revenues. I just think that taxes on spending have a less negative effect than taxes on income. I like the flat tax with a VAT sales tax. The flat tax should have zero loopholes. If there is one allowed, soon after the new code will look like Swiss cheese. Everyone over some poverty level limit should all pay the same. If you still do not want to pay taxes then read Grateful Citizen’s book “ Don’t earn money, don’t pay taxes. How to live large on a buck tree eighty per week”
BTW Grateful Citizen: That last one was one of your best posts yet.
Fixing the economy might be easier if we fixed some politics first. How about term limits? Sorry, I hold disdain for most politicians on both sides.
Cut spending: I like the idea of a straight percentage across the board. Everybody bleeds. Otherwise the argument turns into cut spending/entitlements, just not mine.
3 money makers:
Look at Legalizing prostitution and pot. Definitely tax all internet income (at a flat sales rate to minimize paperwork across states).
Rubicon: 3 things
Economics may be all about math and algorithms but have you ever noticed that there is always an economist on each side of a political argument. Economics, like statistics, is a tool used to sell an argument. Start with a predetermined answer and work your way backwards.
Deregulation: I don’t have enough beer in the fridge to cover me while I explain how wrong you are. Greenspan said it best. “I just assumed the Banks would regulate themselves.’ Regulation is a pendulum. Too much or too little.
Your posts here insinuate this board has very little understanding of real world business. FYI: The training and experience of an SF soldier is ideally suited for a leadership position in business. The reason there are not more business oriented QP’s here is simple. Since 9/11 the acorn upon leaving AD has not had to fall far from the tree.
Final thought:
If you guys don’t like the tax environment today, wait until the idea of taxing wealth instead of income catches on. :D
Off to the bar. This post made me thirsty.
LHC
Badger52
12-16-2012, 07:41
Last hard class: I appreciate the clarifications, particularly on how business compensation is viewed. Perhaps the small biz folks I personally know need to change their model from sitting on the stool to something more pro-active. (I'm not sure they grasp what direct effect the thing known as Obamacare will have on them yet but at street level it is a source of angst.) For my own part I will approach conversations in this vein with them a bit more dispassionately, and will try to get some more understanding of the specific nuts & bolts of what impacts them.
Thanks again. Hope you quenched your thirst.
Dozer523
12-16-2012, 07:50
It’s Saturday and I’m feeling feisty. May as well break cover.
Some random thoughts.
...But somehow you all have ( except Dozer) group thunk yourselves a fairly bizarre concept.
Off to the bar. This post made me thirsty.
LHC
Now THIS is an example of the well thought out, articulate post to which we should all aspire!
Including the other parts I deleted for brevity (and clarity).
Badger52
12-16-2012, 08:16
If you guys don’t like the tax environment today, wait until the idea of taxing wealth instead of income catches on. :D
What's your personal view on valuation of a business's inventory? Not talking about which approach a business might take based on market conditions, rather, the approach that you feel should be taken by a government toward a business's inventory as to its wealth/value and taxation of same.
If you still do not want to pay taxes then read Grateful Citizen’s book “ Don’t earn money, don’t pay taxes. How to live large on a buck tree eighty per week”:eek::D
Cut spending: I like the idea of a straight percentage across the board. Everybody bleeds. Otherwise the argument turns into cut spending/entitlements, just not mine.:cool:
Final thought:
If you guys don’t like the tax environment today, wait until the idea of taxing wealth instead of income catches on.I'm looking at 5 more acres and that's not even funny. :(
Stay safe.
XngZeRubicon
12-16-2012, 10:27
It’s Saturday and I’m feeling feisty. May as well break cover.
Some random thoughts....and the rest of your post....
Last Hard Class, I see why you have wound up where you’ve landed with your following quote:
“The tax code in its current form was written by and for the wealthy. Over the years, like Chinese water torture, the right has slowly allowed more and more people to stop paying taxes all in the name of preserving the wealth for the wealthy.”
I agree but that’s because the tax code is a mammoth and a nightmare….and any attempt to fix the distortions this mammoth has caused over the years has only made it worse. The biggest reason it’s such a mess? The law of unintended consequences is why. The “sound good” policies have been idiotic, just like this 2% thing will look nothing like its intent, and it will make its way down to the very people already over-burdened. That’s why those of us in the middle and upper middle income have wound up pulling the wagon for everyone else, and the number in the wagon is now bigger than the number pulling it. And why more of the same policies – which is what this President is basically advocating – will only burden those of us in the middle more.
It’s also why I want the whole thing overhauled into a flat tax, a fair tax, or any form of simplified tax system.
I agree with many of your observations of the problem but don’t agree with all your solutions for fixing it. Obviously we both agree about the flat tax. But I vehemently disagree with your support of raising taxes on the alleged top 2%.
That’s because I think this particular point is where your assessment really breaks down:
Most small businesses are flow through companies designed to minimize taxes while taking full advantage of all deductions. If your business plan anticipates you maximizing your deductions to the fullest and still having more than $250,000 in taxable income ( see a CPA and a tax attorney to be sure), try this novel concept: Invest the difference back into the company in a way that will increase top line performance . Why put your money in a CD that pays less than 2%? Increase your wealth by increasing the value of your company. Oh yeah, and help grow the economy at the same time.
As a business person you think I am sitting around with my thumb up my ass waiting to see if my personal tax rate goes up? Business is a competition. Innovate within the rules. I may reign in expenditures because the economic outlook is cloudy, but not because my personal income tax may go up. Only someone like a consultant would think that way, because they usually are not entrepreneurs.
Why? Because this isn’t how most small businesses think. I’ve personally experienced entrepreneurial success and entrepreneurial failure. I’ve sat on the management team of a number of others. I helped run an incubator full of small or start up businesses, and that’s not how the majority think. Most are more focused on their products or services, and I’ve had a hard enough time getting them to think about where they even fit within the market compared to their competition, let alone any sophisticated accounting strategies. Your assessment and my assessment of "most small companies" couldn't be more different.
Actually you’ve said a lot of things I agree with in your post, other things not so much, but I vehemently disagree about raising any tax rates.
By the way, just how many days of this bloated government’s operations would those taxes on the highest 2% even cover – assuming it even went according to plan? Just a few days. Let me repeat: that money will barely pay for a week of government operations in this country. The folks who keep advocating this nice clean “it’s only affecting the top 2%” are failing to recognize the law of unintended consequences, the piddly amount it will even bring into the treasury, and the massive psychological impact it will have on the economy, resulting in contraction of the economy. Why? Because small businesses know better than to believe this President when he claims they aren’t going to be hit with taxes.
I stole the following quote from someone on here when I first joined because it was so nice and succinct. I think his name was Tony.
"Most any serious student of - or manipulator - of the current tax system be they an economist, an attorney, consultant, CFO, controller, investment banker or CPA, knows that lowering the tax rates and broadening the tax base results in a substantially more efficient revenue generation system and income stream for the country. Of course, that would result in less need for the rather expensive services provided by such folks."
XngZeRubicon
12-16-2012, 10:39
Your comment is an incredible admission of political bias. ......who is admittedly motivated by ideology.
An ideologue? No, I’m a complete pragmatist who just happens to have a handle on REAL economic history as a practicing entrepreneur, a business adviser, a macroeconomist…....and since you had to throw the word classified in there….as a person assimilating the nation’s intelligence in the nerve center of the Pentagon during the end of booming Reagan years. My expertise is as “front lines” as it gets and as macro as it gets, which is why I know the two perspectives don’t always seem to jive.
There are some people who have none of this experience who also manage to grasp it, and you, Sigaba, are with all due respect, not one of them. My political philosophies during my life have moved all the way from “soak the rich”- as an emotionally driven teenager - to being repulsed by such ignorance in adults. Your assertions about me being an idealogue are laughable.
As for complexity, what do you think algorithms are? You’re not even equipped to make it through two of the calculus-based books I quoted as sources. Any expertise as a business builder? No, all of your knowledge about economics comes from books. I have no doubt you’re a great historian about certain areas of study, but trying to pass yourself off as an expert in economics is ridiculous. I’ve noticed you haven’t even offered an economic or fiscal solution in this thread. Your sole intent in response to any of my posts is to try your damnest to make it appear I don't know a thing about economics.
Yet, here our country is in a downward economic spiral and people continue to listen to people in the media and academia who have little idea about the subject they profess to educate everyone else about. Go figure.
Trapper John
12-16-2012, 12:16
Seriously? I'm surprised you didn't say 'spot on'!
Do you stand by this statement of support in view of my repsonse to XZR's post, espeically in light of her 'underestimation' of her opponents? I never viewed that action as very effective for SF operations (or any operations - military, political, sports, whatever, for that matter)? Do you?
My apologies for not replying to your direct question sooner, Zonie. My response to XZRs post was only in support of the premise that Reaganomics was being taken out of context and misrepresented. A point that irritated me time and time again during the political campaign. I will put forth an expanded post on that point later. This whole thread has taken a very interesting direction in the last few posts.
As to XZRs "underestimation" and somewhat "preachy" tone, I thought this would be best handled by you and the other QPs (turns out that you did). I am still a newbie here and am sensitive to that bit of reality.
XZR: Just a piece of advice from my POV - I think that you have a lot to offer in this forum. You have been stung and IMO rightfully so. It is not so much what your POV is, it is more about how you developed your POV. The QPs and ex-SF OFs like me are more interested in how you think than what you think. You have made a mistake in underestimating who you are talking to and I think that you may (or should) realize that now. A different "tac" on your part is warranted. Your choice. ;)
XngZeRubicon
12-16-2012, 12:22
Deregulation: I don’t have enough beer in the fridge to cover me while I explain how wrong you are. Greenspan said it best. “I just assumed the Banks would regulate themselves.’ Regulation is a pendulum. Too much or too little.
LHC
Btw, LHC, there's too many questions within these posts to answer and I keep missing them but meant to respond to your regulation point. One of the biggest problems in our economy since President Obama came in and pushed Dodd-Frank (bank regulations) is the overwhelming stifling affect it's had on smaller banks' willingness to lend and companys' abilities to borrow money.
XngZeRubicon
12-16-2012, 12:29
My apologies for not replying to your direct question sooner, Zonie. My response to XZRs post was only in support of the premise that Reaganomics was being taken out of context and misrepresented. A point that irritated me time and time again during the political campaign. I will put forth an expanded post on that point later. This whole thread has taken a very interesting direction in the last few posts.
As to XZRs "underestimation" and somewhat "preachy" tone, I thought this would be best handled by you and the other QPs (turns out that you did). I am still a newbie here and am sensitive to that bit of reality.
XZR: Just a piece of advice from my POV - I think that you have a lot to offer in this forum. You have been stung and IMO rightfully so. It is not so much what your POV is, it is more about how you developed your POV. The QPs and ex-SF OFs like me are more interested in how you think than what you think. You have made a mistake in underestimating who you are talking to and I think that you may (or should) realize that now. A different "tac" on your part is warranted. Your choice. ;)
I don't feel stung at all, TJ. As for you or anyone else assuming I think people in this membership don't have business experience is way the hell off the mark. My posts have ALL been in response to just a hand-full of individuals (3 actually) who have offered no tax solutions on this thread but have spent a lot of time trying to undercut my credibility. My answers have all been responses to their very direct questions.
And frankly I got tired of playing that silly game - which is why I posted the HISTORICAL FACTS about the Reagan years. You, afchic, Sigaba, ZD...want to debate the stats or facts about the successes of his economic policies, fine, but the other silliness is boring.
GratefulCitizen
12-16-2012, 12:31
Yet, here our country is in a downward economic spiral and people continue to listen to people in the media and academia who have little idea about the subject they profess to educate everyone else about. Go figure.
The problem isn't intellectual, it's emotional.
Specifically, it would be zero-sum thinking and accepting sunk costs.
Zero-sum thinking is driven by envy.
Accepting sunk costs is accepting loss.
Until people get past zero-sum thinking and accepting sunk costs they can't fully understand the big economic picture.
XngZeRubicon
12-16-2012, 12:33
The problem isn't intellectual, it's emotional.
Specifically, it would be zero-sum thinking and accepting sunk costs.
Zero-sum thinking is driven by envy.
Accepting sunk costs is accepting loss.
Until people get past zero-sum thinking and accepting sunk costs they can't fully understand the big economic picture.
BINGO!!
It's all emotional. Same about gun laws.
Trapper John
12-16-2012, 12:40
The problem isn't intellectual, it's emotional.
Specifically, it would be zero-sum thinking and accepting sunk costs.
Zero-sum thinking is driven by envy.
Accepting sunk costs is accepting loss.
Until people get past zero-sum thinking and accepting sunk costs they can't fully understand the big economic picture.
That about sums it up (Pun Intended) :D
I don't feel stung at all, TJ. As for you or anyone else assuming I think people in this membership don't have business experience is way the hell off the mark. My posts have ALL been in response to just a hand-full of individuals (3 actually) who have offered no tax solutions on this thread but have spent a lot of time trying to undercut my credibility. My answers have all been responses to their very direct questions.
And frankly I got tired of playing that silly game - which is why I posted the HISTORICAL FACTS about the Reagan years. You, afchic, Sigaba, ZD...want to debate the stats or facts about the successes of his economic policies, fine, but the other silliness is boring.
Your problem isn't your understanding of facts, and I have no doubt about your background in economics is impressive. I actually agree with about 99.9% of what you have come up with on our current problem. Your problem is that you are like President Obama. You think you are the smartest person in the room. And if someone doesn't agree with you, it isn't because they have different ideas, it is because they are to ignorant to understand what you are saying. Not an effective leadership strategy.
You keep talking about President Regan's economic prowess, but that isn't why he was able to do what he did. He was able.to accomplish so much because he was a PHENOMENAL leader. He was able to work with his opponents to come up with a plan of action and pass legislation. He didn't call them idiots, or ignorant or any other current twrm in vougue when discussing your political opponents. If the Republicans can't figure that out, we will be relegated to the dustbin of history.
ZonieDiver
12-16-2012, 14:44
My apologies for not replying to your direct question sooner, Zonie.
No worries, Trapper John! There was supposd to be one of these ---->:D at the end of my post, but it was late, and I just now realized it wasn't there.
An ideologue? No, I’m a complete pragmatist who just happens to have a handle on REAL economic history as a practicing entrepreneur, a business adviser, a macroeconomist…....and since you had to throw the word classified in there….as a person assimilating the nation’s intelligence in the nerve center of the Pentagon during the end of booming Reagan years. My expertise is as “front lines” as it gets and as macro as it gets, which is why I know the two perspectives don’t always seem to jive.
There are some people who have none of this experience who also manage to grasp it, and you, Sigaba, are with all due respect, not one of them. My political philosophies during my life have moved all the way from “soak the rich”- as an emotionally driven teenager - to being repulsed by such ignorance in adults. Your assertions about me being an idealogue are laughable.
As for complexity, what do you think algorithms are? You’re not even equipped to make it through two of the calculus-based books I quoted as sources. Any expertise as a business builder? No, all of your knowledge about economics comes from books. I have no doubt you’re a great historian about certain areas of study, but trying to pass yourself off as an expert in economics is ridiculous. I’ve noticed you haven’t even offered an economic or fiscal solution in this thread. Your sole intent in response to any of my posts is to try your damnest to make it appear I don't know a thing about economics.
Yet, here our country is in a downward economic spiral and people continue to listen to people in the media and academia who have little idea about the subject they profess to educate everyone else about. Go figure.XZR--
Once again, you've not read very carefully. The single person who is actively undermining your credibility when it comes to your critical thinking skills, your ability to communicate effectively, as well as your understanding of economics, the "REAL" world, business, and history is you.
If you'd taken the numerous suggestions to do more reading on this BB, you would have found thread after thread in which other members of PS.COM--from short-term backbenchers to plankholding BTDTs--have answered questions about their knowledge, expertise, and experiences. Had you read those threads carefully, you might have discovered that even those who could respond "OPSEC/PERSEC prevents me from answering," or "Nunya," or "You'd have to read five hundred books to understand what I'm saying" find ways to answer questions that are put to them. Once those questions and follow up questions are answered, the conversations typically continue.
Your allegation that you are a "complete pragmatist" who is focused on the "REAL" is sustainable only if one disregards what you've previously posted here. For example, you've previously written "The Economist is a little too liberal for my tastes." (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=478068&postcount=95) IMO, a pragmatist would not disqualify an important newspaper because of a perception of its political leaning.
Along the same lines, your response to Pete's question in post #43 is also revealing. By my reading, Pete's question was a "gimme" for a pragmatist to answer. The question raises the possibility of a president using his/her influence to build bipartisan consensus. Yet, you answered "If I were President and my party had control of both houses, this is how I’d grow the economy" in post #57. To me, that statement flies in the face of your professed "pragmatism"--if not also your ability to read carefully; you answered a different question than the one asked. A pragmatist would welcome opportunities to reach across the aisle. By your response, you indicated a reluctance--if not also an inability--to do just that.
___________________________________________
^ Cryptic cross thread points?
Trapper John
12-16-2012, 16:12
I don't feel stung at all, TJ.
That's too bad, XZR. Sometimes, perhaps often, that is how we learn. Self-evaluation is an important skill often attained with a little pain. As I said, I think you have a lot to offer here and the choice is yours. ;)
Trapper John
12-16-2012, 16:50
Final thought:
If you guys don’t like the tax environment today, wait until the idea of taxing wealth instead of income catches on. :D
Off to the bar. This post made me thirsty.
LHC
There is much that I want to comment on from your post, but I will do that in separate subsequent posts. Thank you for recognizing my attempts to connect the thoughts in various threads. I think this is important and I will try to illustrate that (hopefully better) in subsequent posts.
Your final thought may be a good starting point. I am afraid that the notion of taxing wealth is the very next step. This idea was actually attempted back in the '90s with an idea floated by the IRS. The idea was the notion of taxing "putative income" and if implemented in its extreme would tax the "putative income" you realized from the increase in the market value of your home over the price you paid for it. Let me be clear, the proposed rule would not just tax the "gain" you realized when you sold your home - it was taxing the gain you realized on appreciation of asset value. Fortunately, this did not get out of the discussion stage, but it illustrates how easily taxing wealth could be implemented.
This really, really worries me. I own intellectual property and the company carries this asset at cost on its balance sheet. Cost being the filing fees, legal fees, examination fees, maintenance fees, translation costs , etc. that we actually pay out for our patents. These patents have future value based upon the markets and depending upon how the markets are valued and the risk adjustments to derive a net present value - there is a huge difference from the book value. If wealth "putative income" were to be taxed I and every entrepreneur I know couldn't buy a one way international airline ticket fast enough. The consequences would be absolutely devastating.
I know this notion was contemplated once and it will be again. This time it may become the law of the land. The class warfare that is going on right now is just laying the groundwork.
The Reaper
12-16-2012, 18:26
Does anyone here recall how our income tax began?
Taxes alone will not fix our present dilemna, and they retard growth.
TR
Trapper John
12-16-2012, 18:54
Does anyone here recall how our income tax began?
Taxes alone will not fix our present dilemna, and they retard growth.
TR
TR- I am sure Sig will correct me if I am wrong, but the 16th Amendment was passed in 1913 to pay for the cost of WWI. I think it was only imposed on the wealthiest at the time and was to be temporary :rolleyes:
Prior to that I think I recall from American History classes that a limited income tax was imposed in the Civil War era - again to pay for the war costs.
Once again, you've not read very carefully. The single person who is actively undermining your credibility when it comes to your critical thinking skills, your ability to communicate effectively, as well as your understanding of economics, the "REAL" world, business, and history is you.
___________________________________________
^ Cryptic cross thread points?
Dear XmarkstheSpot, I'm not one who likes to pile on and although several people have pretty clearly identified your difficulty in getting traction here... let me reiterate what Sigaba just wrote.
You are like just seconds away from a 'credibility cliff' that no amount of rope will allow your recovery. Maybe a bit longer break?
Sig, don't go out and buy any bigger hats on my account. Cryptic my ass...
XngZeRubicon
12-16-2012, 19:52
Your problem isn't your understanding of facts, and I have no doubt about your background in economics is impressive. I actually agree with about 99.9% of what you have come up with on our current problem. Your problem is that you are like President Obama. You think you are the smartest person in the room. And if someone doesn't agree with you, it isn't because they have different ideas, it is because they are to ignorant to understand what you are saying. Not an effective leadership strategy.
Folks, there’s no time left for consensus building and debate. Someone needs to just make a command decision at this point because we’ve run out the clock. I spent years going the debate route but our economy can’t wait any longer. It’s the end of the fourth quarter and there’s not even time for a Hail Mary. There are rumors today that Boehner has made the final decision. Rumint is that he’ll agree to raise taxes on the top 2% and I guess it’ll be announced tomorrow or Tuesday.
Now it’s time to hold on for the wild ride. As I pointed out early in this thread, I think this country’s going to learn the lesson the hard way as we see severe economic contraction due to disincentives to invest, to grow, and to create more jobs. Expect to see a flight of capital. Expect people to vote with their feet. Expect risk takers to throttle back. Expect people to actually CUT jobs to stay under the magic Obamacare number of 50 employees. I just had a meeting Friday with a company that has 49 employees. Their marginal costs are going to go through the roof if they hire more people. That 50th employee with bring with him or her reams of red tape and new paperwork for the company and the need to hire people who will suck from their overhead to administer the paperwork instead of helping them make profit.
I think it’s probably the only way to get people to wake the hell up. The time for debate is over.
TR- I am sure Sig will correct me if I am wrong, but the 16th Amendment was passed in 1913 to pay for the cost of WWI.
So - we instituted a federal income tax to pay for a war that had yet to begin? :confused:
Perhaps you should go read a little history of taxation in America and why the ammendment came about. Here's a good place to start.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-17.htm
Gutes lesen!
Richard :munchin
XngZeRubicon
12-16-2012, 20:01
XZR--
___________________________________________
^ Cryptic cross thread points?
Do you always make a habit of breaking PERSEC?
Trapper John
12-16-2012, 20:46
So - we instituted a federal income tax to pay for a war that had yet to begin? :confused:
Perhaps you should go read a little history of taxation in America and why the ammendment came about. Here's a good place to start.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-17.htm
Gutes lesen!
Richard :munchin
My reply to TR was from a "Brief History of the IRS" at www.irs.gov and a portion is excerpted here:
16th Amendment
In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.
In 1918, during World War I, the top rate of the income tax rose to 77 percent to help finance the war effort. It dropped sharply in the post-war years, down to 24 percent in 1929, and rose again during the Depression. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.
When I reread the post I see the confusion. I did not mean the intent of the 16th amendment was to pay for WWI, I meant that the major application of it occurred during WWI as cited above.
Reading your citation, Richard, I did not realize that the 16th Amendment came about to resolve the legal challenges to income on corporations re: taxes requiring apportionment.
Danke fur das lesen.:)
GratefulCitizen
12-16-2012, 21:01
The 16th amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve are an interesting coincidence.
The loosening of the real bill backing requirement to help pay for World War I is a big part of the puzzle.
Spend now, figure out how to pay for it later.
The 16th amendment left the door wide open on the "pay for it" part.
ZonieDiver
12-17-2012, 18:09
I don't feel stung at all, TJ. As for you or anyone else assuming I think people in this membership don't have business experience is way the hell off the mark. My posts have ALL been in response to just a hand-full of individuals (3 actually) who have offered no tax solutions on this thread but have spent a lot of time trying to undercut my credibility. My answers have all been responses to their very direct questions.
And frankly I got tired of playing that silly game - which is why I posted the HISTORICAL FACTS about the Reagan years. You, afchic, Sigaba, ZD...want to debate the stats or facts about the successes of his economic policies, fine, but the other silliness is boring.
Silliness! Good answer. Tell it to the SF SEALS, SF Rangers, and SF Marines.
Rave on, desk jockey. Crunch those numbers. Keep on keepin' on. From this point on, I can't hear you!
Since I know, and you know, that you do not, and have not, read extensively in this forum, I refer you to this:
Oh, nevermind.... it would be a total waste of time. Ta Ta!
Trapper John
12-17-2012, 18:32
Zonie, why don't you tell us how you really feel? :p
ZonieDiver
12-17-2012, 19:21
Zonie, why don't you tell us how you really feel? :p
Cuz...
Befitting my new avatar, it's a 'kinder gentler' me. You know, a shining city on a hill. A thousand points of light. A line in the sand. (ooops, not that last one)
Trapper John
12-17-2012, 20:28
Cuz...
Befitting my new avatar, it's a 'kinder gentler' me. You know, a shining city on a hill. A thousand points of light. A line in the sand. (ooops, not that last one)
LOL ROF :D Zonie, Zonie, Zonie that is absolutely hilarious :D:D:D
Cuz...
Befitting my new avatar, it's a 'kinder gentler' me. You know, a shining city on a hill. A thousand points of light. A line in the sand. (ooops, not that last one)
It's a little late to be getting on Santa's good side...
Befitting my new avatar, it's a 'kinder gentler' me.
Kinda looks like x SF med's SEAL brother. :eek:
Pat
ZonieDiver
12-18-2012, 12:43
It's a little late to be getting on Santa's good side...
It worked when I was a kid... couple weeks before Christmas, I'd really clean up my act. Perfect son and brother. Doing all the chores - well. I think I still have a shot. :D
In another post, PSM sez:
Kinda looks like x SF med's SEAL brother.
One more time... with feeling... as well as kindness AND gentleness in my voice, tkis is an SF site. There are NO "SF SEALs"!
If anything, he's an "Combat Diver" - but he looks pretty 'recreational' to me, and he should have that snorkel in his mouth. :D
One more time... with feeling... as well as kindness AND gentleness in my voice, tkis is an SF site. There are NO "SF SEALs"!
:D
x_SF_med's brother isn't a SEAL? :confused:
Pat
Trapper John
12-19-2012, 14:26
I have attached two excellent discussions from opposite perspectives. The first ("America the Undertaxed") is the liberal view that is well articulated by Andrea Campbell. The second is the counterpoint ("Cut and Grow") by Grover Norquist with a reply by Andrea Campbell. These were taken from Foreign Affairs Sep/Oct 2012 and Nov/Dec 2012 respectively.
IMO these two papers frame the debate very nicely.
Trapper John
Interesting papers.
The thing that's got me is are we mixing apples and oranges when we compare the GDP and taxes of the US vs GDP and taxes of Denmark and other European countries.
How much do the US states prop up the Feds vs how much do the provinces within the European states prop up their governments?
In the US most state and local services are funded by local and state taxes with a mishmash of Federal spending and grants.
Could the difference between 24% and 48% be a good deal of what their Federal government is spending vs what our states and local goverments are taxing and spending above what our Federal government is?
To the little guy everything that the government takes from his wallet is a tax.
Trapper John
12-19-2012, 15:16
Trapper John
Interesting papers.
The thing that's got me is are we mixing apples and oranges when we compare the GDP and taxes of the US vs GDP and taxes of Denmark and other European countries.
How much do the US states prop up the Feds vs how much do the provinces within the European states prop up their governments?
In the US most state and local services are funded by local and state taxes with a mishmash of Federal spending and grants.
Could the difference between 24% and 48% be a good deal of what their Federal government is spending vs what our states and local goverments are taxing and spending above what our Federal government is?
To the little guy everything that the government takes from his wallet is a tax.
Pete-
That is a VERY GOOD question. Short answer is I don't know. I will do some digging and try to get an answer for the both of us. In the meantime, Sig may read this and I will bet your next paycheck that he has the answer. :D
See how I cleverly slipped in that lib type thinking and bet "your' paycheck. :D:D
"Know your enemy" {Tsun Tzu} I am trying to, but I must confess, it takes me a couple of double vodkas to begin to think like a lib.:D
XngZeRubicon
12-20-2012, 19:20
Holy Toledo, Boehner's Plan B just crashed and burned! LMAO. After arm twisting and taking people's committee chairmanships away to try to bring them in line, they told him to take a flying leap. Damn, the best news I've heard in 6 weeks. :D
XngZeRubicon
12-21-2012, 07:54
Maybe we'll get real lucky and Boehner will resign at 10 AM......one can only hope.
XngZeRubicon
12-21-2012, 16:53
Gotta love it. This President comes on at 5, gives a press conference, uses the same old ten hollow buzzwords that appeal to people who can't think for themselves, doesn't answer questions, and says, "Aloha, I'm off to Hawaii for 17 days." Ahh, the people who voted for him deserve what the hell they're gonna get.
I'd say trench warfare is pretty near.
ETA: And since I usually need to spell things out for you Sigaba, let me emphasize that I was referring to in a metaphorical sense.
(And speaking of having to spell things out, when I said the Economist was too liberal, nowhere did I use the words, "I don't read it." In fact, I've enjoyed reading it for over two decades, but recognize its bias. I have to keep catching myself with your inability to think euphemistically, metaphorically, allegorically, and analogously.)
GratefulCitizen
12-21-2012, 20:59
If we do go over the fiscal cliff it will result in a massive "tax" cut.
Oil prices will drop.
Money out of your pocket is money out of your pocket.
Doesn't matter where it goes.
ETA: And since I usually need to spell things out for you Sigaba, let me emphasize that I was referring to in a metaphorical sense.
(And speaking of having to spell things out, when I said the Economist was too liberal, nowhere did I use the words, "I don't read it." In fact, I've enjoyed reading it for over two decades, but recognize its bias. I have to keep catching myself with your inability to think euphemistically, metaphorically, allegorically, and analogously.)
This is the Soapbox, not the Soap Opera, on a Special Forces forum that allows us to be guests here. You might want to check your bitchiness at the door and drive on. Just a suggestion.
Dozer523
12-22-2012, 00:26
Gotta love it. . . . uses the same old ten hollow buzzwords that appeal to people who can't think for themselves . . .
I'd say trench warfare is pretty near. . . . inability to think euphemistically, metaphorically, allegorically, and analogously.)Is there a point to this post?
Gosh, I wish I was you. You knew the Plan B was going to fail.
I guess you expected the same buzzword that appeal to people who can't think like you . . . i mean for themselves.
What do you mean by trench warfare?
Spare us your euphemistically, metaphorically, allegorically, and analogously horse stuff. Give it to us directly, most of us are SF guys, we can handle it. (At least we know what Special Forces is)
ZonieDiver
12-22-2012, 07:46
(At least we know what Special Forces is)
And is not!:D
XngZeRubicon
12-22-2012, 10:08
This is the Soapbox, not the Soap Opera, on a Special Forces forum that allows us to be guests here. You might want to check your bitchiness at the door and drive on. Just a suggestion.
Bitchiness? The country’s falling apart – at an even faster pace than I imagined two months ago – and your concern is about how bitchy someone sounds? Among MANY things at the route of our problems, this fear of people being called meanies or bitches or heartless Capitalists (pick your favorite class warfare term) or someone pushing granny over the cliff is one of them.
It’s why many Republicans who do “get it” don’t stand up to the collectivists and the uninformed driving this country into the ground and call a spade a spade.
Thank you for your concern, but being called names should be the least of anyone’s concerns right now. If this bothers you, wait till the trench warfare starts.
XngZeRubicon
12-22-2012, 10:11
. (At least we know what Special Forces is)
And is not!:D
Well I sure hope you two know that better than I do.;)
XngZeRubicon
12-22-2012, 10:18
Is there a point to this post?
Gosh, I wish I was you. You knew the Plan B was going to fail.
I guess you expected the same buzzword that appeal to people who can't think like you . . . i mean for themselves.
What do you mean by trench warfare?
Spare us your euphemistically, metaphorically, allegorically, and analogously horse stuff. Give it to us directly, most of us are SF guys, we can handle it. (At least we know what Special Forces is)
My favorite buzzword is "compromise."
Do you realize that the Party that stands for growth (generally cutting taxes and spending) has been compromising with the Party that stands for spending (generally raising taxes and spending) for decades but once the deals are implemented, only one side's part of the deal actually goes into effect?
Which is why this country has COMPROMISED itself into $16 Trillion of debt.
It's time to finally get the SPENDING CUT of the deal implemented first. Yet no one has even seriously TOUCHED the issue of spending in these negotiations. NONE. Nada. 0.
Other than more fake accounting that pulls the wool over most peoples' eyes.
Bitchiness? The country’s falling apart – at an even faster pace than I imagined two months ago – and your concern is about how bitchy someone sounds? Among MANY things at the route of our problems, this fear of people being called meanies or bitches or heartless Capitalists (pick your favorite class warfare term) or someone pushing granny over the cliff is one of them.
It’s why many Republicans who do “get it” don’t stand up to the collectivists and the uninformed driving this country into the ground and call a spade a spade.
Thank you for your concern, but being called names should be the least of anyone’s concerns right now. If this bothers you, wait till the trench warfare starts.
You must have been one hell of an intel officer seeing as how you have very impressive SA (not). All I can say is I am glad you are someone else's problem and not the USAF's.
GratefulCitizen
12-22-2012, 10:37
It's time to finally get the SPENDING CUT of the deal implemented first. Yet no one has even seriously TOUCHED the issue of spending in these negotiations. NONE. Nada. 0.
Other than more fake accounting that pulls the wool over most peoples' eyes.
With a fiat currency, spending as a percentage of GDP is the true tax burden.
That burden is extracted through what we call "tax", inflation, and financial repression.
Most people's eyes glaze over when you bring up financial repression.
Then they wonder why they can't find any return on their investments and savings.
The central bank's purchasing of government debt has consequences.
"Risk weighting" rules have consequences.
Just because a tax is opaque doesn't mean it isn't a tax.
A brief article addressing financial repression:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20121124a1.html
Bitchiness? The country’s falling apart – at an even faster pace than I imagined two months ago – and your concern is about how bitchy someone sounds? Among MANY things at the route of our problems, this fear of people being called meanies or bitches or heartless Capitalists (pick your favorite class warfare term) or someone pushing granny over the cliff is one of them.
I knew I'd be sorry for engaging you. Best of luck. You're going to need it.
XngZeRubicon
12-24-2012, 08:19
You must have been one hell of an intel officer seeing as how you have very impressive SA (not). All I can say is I am glad you are someone else's problem and not the USAF's.
Well darlin, I WAS one hell of an intel pogue. Why do you think the AF chose me to brief the CJCS at 2 am in the morning in the middle of a crisis. :cool:
XngZeRubicon
12-24-2012, 08:27
With a fiat currency, spending as a percentage of GDP is the true tax burden.
That burden is extracted through what we call "tax", inflation, and financial repression.
Most people's eyes glaze over when you bring up financial repression.
Then they wonder why they can't find any return on their investments and savings.
The central bank's purchasing of government debt has consequences.
"Risk weighting" rules have consequences.
Just because a tax is opaque doesn't mean it isn't a tax.
A brief article addressing financial repression:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20121124a1.html
Roger the glazing over, GC. I have a good idea for Christmas presents, btw. Maybe folks could go find some books that aren't the usual liberal BS explanation of how the economy works and stick it in peoples' stockings.
I knew I'd be sorry for engaging you. Best of luck. You're going to need it.
Well, okkkkkk, I guess that puts it all to rest.
XZR - after following your numerous postings and interaction amongst the many long-time members of this forum, I am of the opinion that your SA is erratic and of an Aspberger's caliber for anyone who claims to have been a former Intel type and has implied a Mensa-level intellect.
Based upon your many comments in this thread, I am certain you must have a number of published books; newspaper and magazine articles for the likes of the WSJ, FT, and Forbes; and commonly used texts on economics. I would like to read them. Where might I find them?
Richard :munchin
XngZeRubicon
12-24-2012, 10:22
XZR - after following your numerous postings and interaction amongst the many long-time members of this forum, I am of the opinion that your SA is erratic and of an Aspberger's caliber for anyone who claims to have been a former Intel type and has implied a Mensa-level intellect.
Based upon your many comments in this thread, I am certain you must have a number of published books; newspaper and magazine articles for the likes of the WSJ, FT, and Forbes; and commonly used texts on economics. I would like to read them. Where might I find them?Richard :munchin
Why would you make THAT assumption, Richard? As I said earlier in this thread, one of the problems regarding information in this country is that many of the people who actually understand it the most are busy out DOING...... and are not WRITING newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books.
Which is why probably 95% of what IS written has an overwhelming liberal, Keynsian, or hermettically sealed tone to it.
Did you not see my first post in this thread where I said many of the people who grasp it the best don't even have what you consider "credentials?"
As for the Aspbergers, maybe's it's just that I'm 12 chess moves ahead of you.
Have a Merry Christmas by the way.
Astounding - but I do appreciate you providing additional supporting evidence for my suppositions and am glad to see you're not letting any education get in the way of your learning.
Happy holidays.
Richard :munchin
XngZeRubicon
12-24-2012, 12:24
Astounding - but I do appreciate you providing additional supporting evidence for my suppositions and am glad to see you're not letting any education get in the way of your learning.
Happy holidays.
Richard :munchin
I understand you feeling the sting of my anti-academia undertones, Richard. Not all academics are bad, but on this subject, there are few who truly understand the subject at hand. And as you've correctly deduced, part of my strategy would be to encourage Americans to find a way to use their wallets to remove the liberal hold on academia.
I would like to see fiscally responsible Americans moving their dollars away from the Ivy Leagues for starters (it's mostly a fricken racket anyway) and putting pressure on the rest of the university system in this country, moving their dollars away from patronizing liberal media (I suggest they still read it, but read it for free on the internet), and using their dollars to send a message to liberal Hollywood coffers too by waiting for DVDs, etc. for example.
Stop patronizing the liberal hi-tech moguls like AOL, google, FB, as much as possible....and find an alternative whenever possible.
Just a few ideas for starters...........
GratefulCitizen
12-24-2012, 12:46
Roger the glazing over, GC. I have a good idea for Christmas presents, btw. Maybe folks could go find some books that aren't the usual liberal BS explanation of how the economy works and stick it in peoples' stockings.
Have to get them past zero-sum thinking and accepting sunk costs before any explanation would be useful.
My best friend ran a side business where he taught people how to manage their economics and finances.
He said only about 5 percent would fully "get it".
Those under the age of 30 almost never "got it" (too much zero-sum thinking).
Most over the age of 50 would sort of "get it", but came in 2 categories.
There were those over 50 who had lived it, but never put a description to it.
Those over 50 who had not lived it could start to intellectually understand it, but could not emotionally accept it.
You could tell when the older ones would start to understand because they became angry.
But, they just couldn't accept the implications about decisions made over previous decades (couldn't accept sunk costs).
Also, people who would be classified as "insensitive assholes" have a much easier time grasping the concepts.
XngZeRubicon
12-24-2012, 12:49
In fact, Richard, do you know what my number one specific recommendation is for Americans concerned about the direction of this country?
Ban together and start demanding the universities and colleges put actual fucking Capitalists in the Economics Departments.
XngZeRubicon
12-24-2012, 12:53
Have to get them past zero-sum thinking and accepting sunk costs before any explanation would be useful.
My best friend ran a side business where he taught people how to manage their economics and finances.
He said only about 5 percent would fully "get it".
Those under the age of 30 almost never "got it" (too much zero-sum thinking).
Most over the age of 50 would sort of "get it", but came in 2 categories.
There were those over 50 who had lived it, but never put a description to it.
Those over 50 who had not lived it could start to intellectually understand it, but could not emotionally accept it.
You could tell when the older ones would start to understand because they became angry.
But, they just couldn't accept the implications about decisions made over previous decades (couldn't accept sunk costs).
Also, people who would be classified as "insensitive assholes" have a much easier time grasping the concepts.
LOL, GC, I'm going to hold a glass to the "insensitive assholes" tonight in a toast. I'm working real hard to be considered one. People who know me never believe it but I keep trying to convince them.;)
And touche to all your other points. That's why I think all this talk about Republicans and conservatives having a better PR/Advertising/Political campaign is sort of a waste. I think those of us pulling the wagon should slow the wagon down till people start to get the idea better than any words could tell them.
Well darlin, I WAS one hell of an intel pogue. Why do you think the AF chose me to brief the CJCS at 2 am in the morning in the middle of a crisis. :cool:
Not impressed.
XngZeRubicon
12-24-2012, 13:49
Not impressed.
I didn't do it to impress you. I posted it to point out how you have no idea what you're talking about. Either regarding the subject of the thread OR my background OR how the Air Force thinks. You speaking for the entire Air Force? Give me a break.
In fact when I worked in the NMCC, my first boss who was an AF general used to commonly say, "We're being over run by elephants while people are running around here stomping out piss ants." He's the person I got that profound quote from I used early in this thread.
But your comments aren't even in the piss ant category.
Destrier
12-24-2012, 16:16
Opened this thread to see what Pete was responding to, having not read this thread at all, and it appears I missed a doosey, time to scroll back and see
Survival7201
12-24-2012, 18:19
WOW.. I just read this entire thread. Some really good ideas and some really bad form. I am the sensitive type and now I need to go and have a drink. In all a good thread, and a lot of things I hadn't thought through. Wish I was smarter.
GratefulCitizen
12-24-2012, 21:11
That seemed inevitable.
Tried to send a lifeline out and get back to subject matter.
Choices have consequences.
The "insensitive asshole" comment wasn't meant to be a joke.
It was an actual observation.
cetheridge
12-25-2012, 00:47
Been following this thread from the "get go".
Yep! A one-eyed man on a galloping horse could see a "BU" coming....apparently XZR did not....total absence of SA.....did not recognize the life lines being thrown.
Trapper John
01-05-2013, 10:49
Trapper John
Interesting papers.
The thing that's got me is are we mixing apples and oranges when we compare the GDP and taxes of the US vs GDP and taxes of Denmark and other European countries.
How much do the US states prop up the Feds vs how much do the provinces within the European states prop up their governments?
In the US most state and local services are funded by local and state taxes with a mishmash of Federal spending and grants.
Could the difference between 24% and 48% be a good deal of what their Federal government is spending vs what our states and local goverments are taxing and spending above what our Federal government is?
To the little guy everything that the government takes from his wallet is a tax.
OK, so now that the pissing contest is over ;), I would like to get back to the main topic of this thread. IMO this thread is one of the more important and interesting and there is a lot to discuss here. Tax policy is perhaps the most important component of overall Fiscal Policy and discussing the differences between the EU model and US model should be very enlightening. Pete raised a very good and important question (see quote) but this is outside of my wheelhouse so I am putting an emergency call out for the "Sig" to help on this one. Ultimately, I would like to interject some thoughts that relate to Monetary Policy and see how that plays out too. Should be fun :lifter