Wendy's Chili: EWreckedSean: This is the problem with Keynesian economics, and why they don't work. On paper it is a brilliant idea. The problem is that actually following it is bad politics. Raising taxes and cutting benefits, even in a boom, is a sure fire way to lose your job in Washington.

You're right that following it will likely cost you your job, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen or doesn't work.

The 1993 omnibus bill raised taxes and cut Medicare expenditures. Not a single Republican voted for it, and they beat the Democrats over the head with it in the '94 midterms, but it put us on pretty good fiscal footing until President Warhawk McTaxcut took office.

The problem in Washington isn't Keynesian economics, it's the Republican party.

You go ahead and bury your head in the sand if you like. The reality is it is both parties. Keynesian requires that in a boom, you raise taxes AND cut spending. Republicans like to cut spending, Democrats like to raise taxes. Doing one or the other by itself isn't Keynesian. As to the pretty good fiscal footing part, even Clinton's people said that his Omnibus bill wouldn't remotely balance the budget. The country however was handed a gift in the mid to late 90s, and the web boom saw government revenues rising at a rate of 7 to 10% a year, while spending was kept under 3% a year. THAT is why we were on good footing in the late 90s, not because of Clinton's tax plan, and the recession that followed had nothing to do with Bush's tax policies, it had to do with a bubble bursting. But please, keep pointing fingers at the other guy. That does so well for us.

EWreckedSean: Republicans like to cut spending

Lol, no.

justadadX3: BTW - the biggest marginal tax rate cuts under JFK were to the highest brackets - so please clarify what you mean by targeted at the demand side.

I mean the tax cuts were oriented to stimulate demand, and most of them went to lower tax brackets. But since you approve of the Kennedy approach, let's move that highest tax bracket back to where Kennedy cut it to: 71%. Clearly, the historical evidence shows that we can have a booming

I posted a link to a whole article explaining how and why Kennedy's tax cuts were focused on the demand side. It's no surprise you couldn't bother to avail yourself of it. After all, it's not Fox News propaganda. Instead,. it's designed to counter Fox News propaganda with objective facts of reality.

Kennedy was a Keynesian. HIs tax policy was Keynesian. And in fact it was the business community who voiced the loudest objection to Kennedy's demand side tax cuts.

Your lecture on how "liberals" have supposedly misunderstood Keynesian economics is laughable, coming from a borrow and spend conservative. The Democrats have a demonstrated history of enhancing revenues during economic upturns. The Republicans,by contrast, have no history of ever meaningfully cutting spending ever.

bugontherug: I mean the tax cuts were oriented to stimulate demand, and most of them went to lower tax brackets. But since you approve of the Kennedy approach, let's move that highest tax bracket back to where Kennedy cut it to: 71%. Clearly, the historical evidence shows that we can have a booming economy with a 70% top marginal rate.

Pardon me.

EWreckedSean: Keynesian requires that in a boom, you raise taxes AND cut spending.

No it doesn't. It just prescribes a balanced budget, whether achieved via tax increases or spending cuts.

Slaxl: It's just not funny anymore. Why does the GOP have a loyal following of poor people who think the millionaires need tax breaks while their children starve? Why does this happen?

The Dems should be winning every congressional election but progressives continue to make such poor choices in communication. It's no wonder the DNC lost full control over Congress.

Pains me to say it, but the left needs to adjust its political language in order to reframe all platform planks as populist issues rather than the identity politics of the last 30+ years. That's key to taking back the working class white male voters that feel shunned. Quit already with the divisive language that is shooting ourselves in the foot.

xcv:
Pains me to say it, but the left needs to adjust its political language in order to reframe all platform planks as populist issues rather than the identity politics of the last 30+ years. That's key to taking back the working class white male voters that feel shunned. Quit already with the divisive language that is shooting ourselves in the foot.

There's some merit to this idea. But are you suggesting Democrats should stop concerning themselves with justice for traditionally excluded minorities?

Giltric: Mea Culpa...its 1 in 5 so 20% participation.

In this study of school breakfast participation in 3 innercity

In this study of 3 inner city schools, we therefore conclude all of New Jersey is like this? This is what you actually believe?

bugontherug: EWreckedSean: Keynesian requires that in a boom, you raise taxes AND cut spending.

No it doesn't. It just prescribes a balanced budget, whether achieved via tax increases or spending cuts.

No, it doesn't. In Keynesian you should be running a surplus in a boom to pay for deficit spending in a recession.

Wendy's Chili: EWreckedSean: Bof sydz r saym.

The last two times Medicare was trimmed, it was done by Democrats and Democrats alone.

And Democrats have a budget plan that actually eliminates the deficit and tackles the debt without hurting those who depend on the government or raising taxes on the poor. By contrast, the "marvelous" Ryan plan increases taxes on the poor, eliminates Medicare, guts countless government programs for education, research, and public assistance, and still raises the deficit.

The Democrats don't have a plan. That's is the Progressive Caucus plan. And it can be summarized as: tax the shiat out of everybody and the economy will be fine because we will have buckets of money.

EWreckedSean: Wendy's Chili: EWreckedSean: Bof sydz r saym.

The last two times Medicare was trimmed, it was done by Democrats and Democrats alone.

And Democrats have a budget plan that actually eliminates the deficit and tackles the debt without hurting those who depend on the government or raising taxes on the poor. By contrast, the "marvelous" Ryan plan increases taxes on the poor, eliminates Medicare, guts countless government programs for education, research, and public assistance, and still raises the deficit.

The Democrats don't have a plan. That's is the Progressive Caucus plan. And it can be summarized as: tax the shiat out of everybody and the economy will be fine because we will have buckets of money.

Which of these do you disagree with?
• Ends the recently passed upper-income tax cuts and lets Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of 2012
• Extends tax credits for the middle class, families, and students
• Creates new tax brackets that range from 45% starting at $1 million to 49% for $1 billion or more
• Implements a progressive estate tax

Source: Link

Rapmaster2000: Yeah, but has a child ever given you a job?

Once. I am not allowed to live within 500 feet of a place where children congregate ever again.

HAMMERTOE: nekom: WWJD? Cut taxes, that's what he'd do.

Considering that not a single gospel ever said, "When Jesus workday was ended...," I don't think he was ever concerned with paying taxes. Just like the half of America that doesn't pay any right now. How do you cut from zero?


You are stupid or a liar, there is no middle ground here.

bugontherug: justadadX3: BTW - the biggest marginal tax rate cuts under JFK were to the highest brackets - so please clarify what you mean by targeted at the demand side.

I mean the tax cuts were oriented to stimulate demand, and most of them went to lower tax brackets. But since you approve of the Kennedy approach, let's move that highest tax bracket back to where Kennedy cut it to: 71%. Clearly, the historical evidence shows that we can have a booming

I posted a link to a whole article explaining how and why Kennedy's tax cuts were focused on the demand side. It's no surprise you couldn't bother to avail yourself of it. After all, it's not Fox News propaganda. Instead,. it's designed to counter Fox News propaganda with objective facts of reality.

Kennedy was a Keynesian. HIs tax policy was Keynesian. And in fact it was the business community who voiced the loudest objection to Kennedy's demand side tax cuts.

Your lecture on how "liberals" have supposedly misunderstood Keynesian economics is laughable, coming from a borrow and spend conservative. The Democrats have a demonstrated history of enhancing revenues during economic upturns. The Republicans,by contrast, have no history of ever meaningfully cutting spending ever.

Please allow me to clarify:

I did not lecture anyone and definitely did not call out "Liberals"
Republicans spend like drunken sailors - just like Dems, just on different stuff - both are right sometimes and both are wrong sometimes.
We need to cut spending and find ways to raise tax revenues, which is best achieved by accelerating the turn in the money supply - which is best accomplished in a business friendly environment.
Government cannot and should not be the exclusive source to solve all problems in society. Reasonable people can disagree on what problems should be solved w/o the need to vilify the other person.

I strive to avoid name calling and personal attacks in my posts. If I have offended I sincerely apologize.

demaL-demaL-yeH: jst3p: HAMMERTOE: nekom: WWJD? Cut taxes, that's what he'd do.

Considering that not a single gospel ever said, "When Jesus workday was ended...," I don't think he was ever concerned with paying taxes. Just like the half of America that doesn't pay any right now. How do you cut from zero?


You are stupid or a liar, there is no middle ground here.

Sure there is: Stupid AND a liar. (And semiliterate.)

Payroll and excise taxes are addressed above.

The wandering carpenter was a Jew: Tzedakah (translated as charity, but also means justice and righteousness) is a mandatory tax. The man even addressed the morality of taxes. We Jews are specifically charged with taking care of the poor, children, widows, the elderly, the sick, and the strangers in our midst. I believe that christians have a similar religious/moral obligation - at least that's what they tell me.

They do. It's pretty clear too.

Help those in need, and it is like helping Jesus himself. Ignore those in need, at it is as if you ignored Jesus in his time of need. Those that help their fellow man go to heaven, those that fail to help them go to hell.

It's not like the man stuttered.

I wonder if the 280,000 hungry children even heard about the debt ceiling fiasco last year and if they did know about it, did they realize they were the ones that were going to pay the price for the Republicans not letting the automatic defense cuts take place?

giftedmadness: wall 'o' quote, lol because he got nuthin = PLONK

Not willing to listen to these god damn marching morons anymore.

giftedmadness: Corporate Self: giftedmadness: [fathersmanifesto.net image 291x341]

From http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx:

Confusing association with causation
"This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical" ...

lmao. keep smoking

Ad hominem

The term "poisoning the well" also refers to a form of ad hominem fallacy. This is an attempt to discredit the argument of another by implying that they possess an unsavory trait, or that they are affiliated with other beliefs or people that are wrong or unpopular. A common form of this also has its own name - Godwin's Law or the reductio ad Hitlerum. This refers to an attempt at poisoning the well by drawing an analogy between another's position and Hitler or the Nazis.

meat0918: It's not like the man stuttered really existed.

Giltric: When they cut the funding for a breakfast program like this in NJ the complaintants failed to mention that only 30% of the students actually showed up at 7am or 730am for the free breakfast for poor kids, if the food wasn't eaten it was thrown out....ie wasted.

Sure it makes you feel good thinking that this money helps these kids but how many kids actually utilize the program and what percent of this program ends up in the garbage.

I don't mind feeding the needy, I have a big problem with wasted money....the devil is always in the details.

[citation needed]

Debeo Summa Credo: JesusJuice: These people are coming dangerously close to becoming so completely devoid of humanity that it will not be unethical to kill them.

I completely disagree with that statement.

Debeo: Any of you middle class people go to the movies, or have cable TV, or go out to dinner in restaurants when you could be preparing more economical meals at home? How many meals would the money you spend on these discretionary purchases buy for impoverished children in 3rd world nations? And yet you continue subscribing to cable TV, going out to see American Pie Reunion, and making your weekly visits to the Cheesecake factory for their $11.95 fajita poppers while children in Mali starve. Shame on you, you greedy, soulless bastards.

That would be a suitable critique if liberals were arguing that the wealthy should be forced to forgo all of their wealth in order to pay for raising the quality of life of the poor. But that's not our argument and you know it. The argument is that the additional wealth above certain levels should be taxed at a higher rate, i.e.: what's known as a progressive tax code.

But I'm still confused. Many farkers have argued that government spending actually benefits millionaires and the rich oligarchs more than the poor by providing them with customers for their products and educated well fed drones to put to work in their factories. If this is true, then the rich are actually being generous by trying to cut spending - after all, they get more benefit out of it than the poor, right?

It depends on how you measure benefit. If you are saving someone's life by cheaply treating some curable illness that they couldn't pay for, that's a huge benefit to them. But the actual amount of money spent might be quite small, so it's a small monetary benefit.

Likewise, the millionaire whose company relies on employees who were educated at public expense, whose products are delivered to markets via roads built with public funds, and whose goods are protected from theft by police who are public employees may actually be receiving a very large benefit, but one that is hard to measure in precise dollar terms and is rarely counted as a direct monetary benefit at all.

So, do you measure benefits by how much they cost? Or by how much the person would have to pay to duplicate them? Or by how much the person would be willing to pay if they weren't available?

jst3p: HAMMERTOE: nekom: WWJD? Cut taxes, that's what he'd do.

Considering that not a single gospel ever said, "When Jesus workday was ended...," I don't think he was ever concerned with paying taxes. Just like the half of America that doesn't pay any right now. How do you cut from zero?


You are stupid or a liar, there is no middle ground here.

Or talking about income tax.

Zasteva: It depends on how you measure benefit. If you are saving someone's life by cheaply treating some curable illness that they couldn't pay for, that's a huge benefit to them. But the actual amount of money spent might be quite small, so it's a small monetary benefit.

Likewise, the millionaire whose company relies on employees who were educated at public expense, whose products are delivered to markets via roads built with public funds, and whose goods are protected from theft by police who are public employees may actually be receiving a very large benefit, but one that is hard to measure in precise dollar terms and is rarely counted as a direct monetary benefit at all.

So, do you measure benefits by how much they cost? Or by how much the person would have to pay to duplicate them? Or by how much the person would be willing to pay if they weren't available?

Exactly.

It won't matter though, Debeo has a huge blindspot when it comes to worshiping the wealthy, you'll never convince him of anything.

[cat rubs Zasteva in gratitude, after heavily spraying self with anti-allergy spray, and donning claw-blunting caps so as to not injure the wild songbirds]

Please please don't shoot me.

Kittypie070: [cat rubs Zasteva in gratitude, after heavily spraying self with anti-allergy spray, and donning claw-blunting caps so as to not injure the wild songbirds]

Please please don't shoot me.

Not sure what I did to earn the gratitude, but you're welcome. Oh, and shooting is right out :-)

You have sharp wits, Zasteva, and additionally, you are patient and calm.

I admire that.

Kittypie070: You have sharp wits, Zasteva, and additionally, you are patient and calm.

I admire that.

Oh, thanks! Feel free to look me up on facebook if you like :-)