2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427681]Dickhead is correct - one must learn from tragic mistakes to avoid repeating them, and it's fascinating to see someone like Tiny12 advocate wanton ignorance about such things as communism.[/quote]I doubt that was Tiny's point.

[quote=]Of course, we see that those who advocate ignorance about what they disagree with tend to be ignorant about a whole lot of stuff, as apparently, this makes it easier to regurgitate talking points without worrying if they have any actual merits to them, rather than soothe their need for simplistic answers to complex questions and problems.[/quote]The day you can articulate conservatism will be the day I can part the Red Sea.

[quote=]It's most amusing that our Republican friends are very quick to note - Correctly, I might add - that communist policies have failed in the past, but they are unwilling or unable to do the same with their own favorite dogma, I. E. That tax cuts for the wealthy as a means of stimulating economic opportunity for the middle and poorer classes do not in fact work, but rather, simply contribute to the overall inequality of wealth.[/quote]For the record, I am not a Republican, I am a conservative. The legendary right-winger John F. Kennedy proved you wrong.

[quote=]I've posted this study before, but none of our conservative friends on this forum was either willing or capable of addressing it's substance:

[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf[/url][/quote]Zzzzzzzzzzz.

[quote=]I do feel compelled to note that Mitt Romney has been endorsed by that well known deep thinker with concern over how to benefit the middle class, one Lindsay Lohan[/QUOTE]You think that is more egregious than the scores of embarrassing statements and instances of abject ignorance displayed by Obama and his minions?

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427687]Success is just delayed failure. Ask the trickle-down advocates. Or Tiger Woods.[/QUOTE]There are more wealthy and fewer poor folks under trickle-down economics than there are under trickle-down government.

Rome spent close to 70% of its GDP in the public sector at their peak. In fact, the decline of that particular empire coincided with decreased government spending, although correlation does not prove causality. Same thing with the Habsburg Empire. Of course, this is data mining because I am only presenting examples that corroborate what I seek to show, but actually those are the only two empires I have studied in that regard. México, I know, was relatively more successful (defining success in terms of peace and lack of starvation) when government spending was relatively higher, but I haven't looked at that one empirically. All government spending is not equal, though. Spending on things like education and training is investment (if the education and training is worth a shit, of course) , infrastructure spending can have high rates of return and short payback periods (unless the project was pork in the first place) , and there is such a thing as a natural monopoly. Defense spending is often Keynesian in nature, a juxtaposition many conservatives dislike. One problem I would address if elected (but see Sherman, William T.) is agricultural and other subsidies that distort the markets. That type of government spending is counterproductive.

So my platform is as follows:

1) Eliminate the corporate income tax.

2) Adopt a higher set of individual rates, that are approximately as progressive as what we currently have, that would be revenue neutral considering #1.

Immediate savings in bureaucratic bullshit. Decreased government employment would result, which could have a temporary negative effect. Some of the savings could be earmarked to offset this with temporary transfer payments to affected workers. Say 50.

3) Legalize marijuana. Regulate it and tax it like alcohol.

Immediate savings in bureaucratic bullshit. Decreased government employment would result, which could have a temporary negative effect. Suggest executing those cocksuckers instead.

4) Legalize prostitution. Duh.

Immediate savings in bureaucratic bullshit. Decreased local government revenues from outrageous property seizures would result, which could have a temporary negative effect, had we not had the foresight to legalize marijuana to offset this.

5) Tax all forms of income, earned income, dividends, royalties, and capital gains at the same rate. If you are against this proposal, read Modigliani and Miller and then shut the fuck up until you win your own Nobel Prize. QED.

6) Abolish the Electoral College and the Senate. If this does not happen eventually blood will flow in the streets. It never will so I hope 'eventually' is after I am dead.

7) Abolish private and charter schools. Maintain local control of the curriculum if you like (although I wouldn't) but everybody goes to the same fucking school for Christ's sake. That is the type of basic equality that [B]my[/B] United States is all about. And free means free. No more of these bullshit textbook fees that we did not have when I was a kid. That is a real problem.

8) Abolish tax breaks for religious organizations. Duh. It is in the Constitution.

9) Abolish all aspects of the tax system that favor those with children over those without, or those with more children over those with fewer. Encouraging large families is regressive.

10) Take the New York Yankees, their management, and their fans out on a boat in the middle of the ocean and sink it.

This is my platform. Feel free to write my name on your ballot: Richard T. Head, Esq.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427689]There are more wealthy and fewer poor folks under trickle-down economics than there are under trickle-down government.[/QUOTE]Any empirical documentation of this assertion would be favorably received.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427694]Any empirical documentation of this assertion would be favorably received.[/QUOTE]I'll work on that. However, we might start with the more than 110 million people killed by communist regimes, during the last century.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427696]I'll work on that. However, we might start with the more than 110 million people killed by communist regimes, during the last century.[/QUOTE]Start with the economic side, but also work on supporting the figure you just gave. And try to move away from examples involving communism because that is so last century. I understand that is hard for you to recognize because you don't have any idea what communism is or involves, but I will grant that you can probably identify which countries were communist in the past.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427697]Start with the economic side, but also work on supporting the figure you just gave. And try to move away from examples involving communism because that is so last century. I understand that is hard for you to recognize because you don't have any idea what communism is or involves, but I will grant that you can probably identify which countries were communist in the past.[/QUOTE]Sure, let's ignore the facts and move into fantasy land. I can assure you that Communism and its ilk are not last century. I am also quite certain that being killed severely limits one's ability to participate in the economy. Any more ridiculous constraints that you'd like to apply to the analysis? Does the air in that bubble ever get stale?

What's it's 'ilk'? Socialism? Go back and study the history of economic development and thought. You were sick that day too. It's really easy to ignore facts when chatting with you, since you never present any. You are articulate but lacking in substance. Have you considered a career in politics?

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427699]What's it's 'ilk'? Socialism? Go back and study the history of economic development and thought. You were sick that day too.[/QUOTE]I am surprised that an economic genius such as yourself doesn't know that there are multiple flavors of communism and command economies. Typical leftist approach: one size fits all.

Give some examples to support your position. Certainly there is a continuum of economic strategies ranging from pure capitalism to pure communism. Some would say socialism lies along that continuum (my view) while others would say it lies inside or within it; I think few would say it lies outside it. You don't engage my views at all; rather, you resort to 'liberal' as an epithet despite my assurance it does not describe me very well. You're adept at introducing straw men but seemingly incapable of any kind of independent analysis. It's sort of an anecdotal approach in place of an analytical one.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427703]Give some examples to support your position. Certainly there is a continuum of economic strategies ranging from pure capitalism to pure communism. Some would say socialism lies along that continuum (my view) while others would say it lies inside or within it; I think few would say it lies outside it. You don't engage my views at all; rather, you resort to 'liberal' as an epithet despite my assurance it does not describe me very well. You're adept at introducing straw men but seemingly incapable of any kind of independent analysis. It's sort of an anecdotal approach in place of an analytical one.[/QUOTE]I've been pretty consistent over the past four years about Obama, Marxism and related subjects. Feel free to use the search function to educate yourself.

I don't feel the need to change the subject, however, I just saw this and thought that it is appropriate: [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/13/us-qaeda-zawahiri-film-idUSBRE89C06520121013[/url]

Your boy Obama is LEADING Al Qaeda's attack on the US by providing them with excuses and cover.

Here is an article by an economist who has a PhD from Wharton, normally considered to be both a top program and a fairly mainstream one. The author claims [B]and presents empirical evidence[/B] that tax rates and economic growth are unrelated. See what kind of holes you can poke in this.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/does-28-top-marginal-tax-rate-mean-175706337.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 427705]I've been pretty consistent over the past four years about Obama, Marxism and related subjects. Feel free to use the search function to educate yourself.

I don't feel the need to change the subject, however, I just saw this and thought that it is appropriate:

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/13/us-qaeda-zawahiri-film-idUSBRE89C06520121013[/url]

Your boy Obama is LEADING Al Qaeda's attack on the US by providing them with excuses and cover.[/QUOTE]I haven't indicated a preference for one candidate over another but I do find it interesting that you call Obama 'boy. ' I did not see any particular point to the article you quoted. Maybe you would like to elaborate.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427699]It's really easy to ignore facts when chatting with you, since you never present any. You are articulate but lacking in substance.[/QUOTE]That, and his misinformed yammering about Obama being a Marxist without any basis is why I put him on my ignore list. The calling of Obama "boy" is just more indication of where he's REALLY coming from.

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 427706]Here is an article by an economist who has a PhD from Wharton, normally considered to be both a top program and a fairly mainstream one. The author claims [B]and presents empirical evidence[/B] That tax rates and economic growth are unrelated. See what kind of holes you can poke in this.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/does-28-top-marginal-tax-rate-mean-175706337.html[/url][/QUOTE]My argument is also with high marginal rates on corporations and a tax system riddled with loopholes. I assume unlike Member #2041 that you don't disagree with that. The evidence is pretty clear cut that they slow economic growth.

You're an economist, I'm not. But doing a quick search in Google Scholar, there appears to be no argument that higher tax rates on companies reduce economic growth. Lee and Gordon (2005) estimate a 10% cut in the corporate tax rate increases economic growth by one to two percentage points. Other studies have similar results. That's gigantic, and I guess something you and Walleye already knew. Cut the rate on corporations to 0% and the tax on sole proprietorships, LLC's and Sub S's to 0% and we end up with East Asian levels of economic growth. I actually don't think the effect would be that profound, but am sure it would increase the GDP growth rate.

The data for the personal income tax is less clear cut. But as alluded to above, in the United States a large part of the personal income tax on the wealthy is actually tax on profits from businesses – sole proprietorships, LLC's and Sub S corporations. Higher tax rates on these businesses will slow economic growth, everything else being equal.


With respect to the mixed views on whether higher personal tax rates, exclusive of taxes on business, affect economic growth, they largely, like your link, don't take into account all the variables. They may not look at business conditions, education, globalization, technology, etc.

Most importantly, perhaps, some may not look at where we started and where we're going. COUNTRIES SEE GDP GROWTH FALL AS THEY BECOME MORE PROSPEROUS AND WEALTHIER. That's what's going on in the graph in your link. Lower tax rates are not causing GDP growth rates to fall. The only two countries that aren't special cases (oil rich, etc.) that I know of that have managed to maintain high rates of GDP growth as they've become wealthy are Singapore and Hong Kong. AND THEY HAVE LOW CORPORATE AND PERSONAL TAX RATES.

As I've pointed out here ad nauseum, if you compare compare high tax economies to low tax economies, the ones with lower taxes do better, all other things being equal. Compare Hong Kong and Singapore to any place in the world. And compare East Asian countries and the USA to Western Europe. Go through a list of the 10 countries with the highest GDP per capita in the world -- 7 or 8 of the 10, including the USA, have lower tax rates than Western Europe. And 6 have very low tax rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita.

There's a fairness issue. How much are you going to milk people? Some would say 50% or 60% on high earners including state income taxes. I view that as robbery and in that scenario don't see much difference between the USA government and someone who hits you over the head and takes your wallet.