American Politics during the Obama Presidency

I wonder how supply siders deal with immigration. A weakness of supply side economics, as opposed to demand side economics, is you have to forecast demand farther in advance if supply side techniques are to work, because you have to provide the infrastructure, inventory buildup, etc. In advance. It is not as nimble of a strategy and requires more capital sooner, which flies in the face of the time value of money. I really think that this is an inherent weakness, in that it inevitably adds an additional forecasting variable and thus additional imprecision. So the supply siders are saying, how many méxicans are we going to need, but the demand siders are one step ahead by calculating what to do with the méxicans who are already here instead of building fences and shit.

Righties, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. Have economic strategies that are reactive instead of proactive. There are some advantages to this, such as not going off half-cocked and etc, but I really think the tendency to look backwards accounts for the slight yet definite outperformance of lefties, Democrats, etc, over the last hundred years or so. Democrats have some silly programs that Republicans need to audit, and numerous government agencies can be (slowly but definitely) eliminated. But Republicans need better economists because the numbers just continue to refute their positions.

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 429391]Well, there has been no empire in history that did not tax its citizens. In the early days a lot of times it was tariffs and duties, which are bad. Sales taxes are better than trade barriers. And then income taxes are better than sales taxes, because sales taxes are inherently regressive while income taxes need not be. So that is the ideal in theory.

Then in practice bullshit gets added to achieve social goals, such as the mortgage interest and charitable deductions. This is not an indictment of a progressive income tax versus a flat tax; it is an indictment of legislators' propensity to propose bullshit, some of which gets achieved. This is why I want to reduce the physical size of Congress to say 200 or 250 from its current size. Fewer legislators, fewer laws.

You extreme fiscal conservatives don't get that what you propose is 1929 all over again. Yes, reduce military spending. Yes, reduce transfer payments. Yes, increase tax revenue. Yes, pass a law now that addresses all of those things for several years to come (but not forever because things change; I would propose a seven to ten year plan). No, you can't immediately reduce government by 50% and taxes by 50% and this and that by 50. 5-10% annual changes in these types of things are needed. The more concrete and mid- to longish- term the proposals can be, the more believable they are. This is what will soothe markets, increase consumer confidence, and lead to a good blend of mild inflation and reasonably full employment. And [B]those[/B] Are the conditions that stimulate investment and income.

So if we reduce the deficit by 10% every year for 10 years, does it go away?[/QUOTE]US shouldn't need an income tax because it is a Constitutional Republic, not an Empire, and did fine without an income tax which was originally banned in the Constitution. Texas, Florida and many other states are doing just fine without an intrusive income tax. Interesting is both of these states have been growing in population so I guess we are voting with our feet.

Where are they Now?

Everyday the Smart Republicans are coming forward and saying how bad a choice he was.

Saying that he did not understand what the People wanted, what he wanted was only for the Rich.

Are You The One of the New Republican Enlightened Ones?

Or Are You Still Stuck in the Bubble?

From I have Read lately, I think most of you are still Stuck in the Bubble, as is Jackson.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 429405]Where are they Now?

Everyday the Smart Republicans are coming forward and saying how bad a choice he was.

Saying that he did not understand what the People wanted, what he wanted was only for the Rich.

Are You The One of the New Republican Enlightened Ones?

Or Are You Still Stuck in the Bubble?

From I have Read lately, I think most of you are still Stuck in the Bubble, as is Jackson.[/QUOTE]WT Congratulations on your win, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular vote totals for President.

I'm Libertarian and I'm stuck with Obama's economic BUBBLE that is going to pop faster than we think, did you see Treasury Sec Geithner wants to get rid of the debt ceiling completely so they can borrow forever? I'd like to make an even money bet with you during that during the current administration (thru the end of term in 2017) that S&P will lower the USA's credit rating (again) , if so I win. If S&P increases the rating back to AAA, I lose. If the rating stays the same as now at AA+ it is a tie. I won't include Fitch or Moody's since they haven't downgraded yet, that would be like taking candy from a baby, it's just a question of when not if on those 2. WT69, do you think the USA's credit rating will get better in the coming years, or maybe you just don't think deficits matter anyway. We sure got a lotta red ink in the last 4 years. Would like your thoughts on deficit spending and balancing the budget. I have a feeling your solution (if any) is tax the rich and not cut any spending)

[QUOTE=Silver Star;429399]US shouldn't need an income tax because it is a Constitutional Republic, not an Empire, and did fine without an income tax which was originally banned in the Constitution. Texas, Florida and many other states are doing just fine without an intrusive income tax. Interesting is both of these states have been growing in population so I guess we are voting with our feet.[/QUOTE]The economy did not 'do just fine' before the income tax. It was a series of huge booms and bust, partly because the main source of revenue was import duties or tariffs, which were shown to be inefficient early in the nineteenth century by Ricardo. In the early twentieth century Heckscher and Ohlin proved the inefficiency under an even wider set of circumstances. Then, the lessen was clearly learned in the Great Depression, which was made longer and worse by the use of tariffs or import duties. So THAT is why income tax systems came to dominate. If you want to go back to mercantilism and customs houses, you are living in the right place!

[QUOTE=Jackson; 429361]Now, how about you answering a question which I have posed on several past ocassions without response: What percentage of the total US income tax burden should be paid by the top 10% of income earners?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]I gave you an answer TWICE to that question, Jackson. In fact the first time, you thanked me for finally giving an answer to your question. Why you keep posting this question again, and claiming nobody ever gave you an answer, is very puzzling.

Here is some that like Free Things.

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-15/farm-counties-topping-subsidy-list-backed-romney-bgov-barometer.html[/url]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 429405]Where are they Now?

Everyday the Smart Republicans are coming forward and saying how bad a choice he was.

Saying that he did not understand what the People wanted, what he wanted was only for the Rich.

Are You The One of the New Republican Enlightened Ones?

Or Are You Still Stuck in the Bubble?

From I have Read lately, I think most of you are still Stuck in the Bubble, as is Jackson.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 429418]Here is some that like Free Things.

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-15/farm-counties-topping-subsidy-list-backed-romney-bgov-barometer.html[/url][/QUOTE]Yey WT.

Your guy won.

You're going to get everything you wanted.

The country will now be transformed into a liberal paradise.

So why don't you give it a rest, okay?

Thanks,

Jackson

Ryan wants Austerity and that ain't working in Europe.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/krugman-the-austerity-agenda.html[/url]

Yes, this article is a few months old, but it carries the same message.

If I knew how to balance the budget I might been a politician or a banker.

Isn't it great that the Market is doing better now than when Obama first started? I think it was around 7500s.

[QUOTE=Silver Star; 429407]WT Congratulations on your win, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular vote totals for President.

I'm Libertarian and I'm stuck with Obama's economic BUBBLE that is going to pop faster than we think, did you see Treasury Sec Geithner wants to get rid of the debt ceiling completely so they can borrow forever? I'd like to make an even money bet with you during that during the current administration (thru the end of term in 2017) that S&P will lower the USA's credit rating (again) , if so I win. If S&P increases the rating back to AAA, I lose. If the rating stays the same as now at AA+ it is a tie. I won't include Fitch or Moody's since they haven't downgraded yet, that would be like taking candy from a baby, it's just a question of when not if on those 2. WT69, do you think the USA's credit rating will get better in the coming years, or maybe you just don't think deficits matter anyway. We sure got a lotta red ink in the last 4 years. Would like your thoughts on deficit spending and balancing the budget. I have a feeling your solution (if any) is tax the rich and not cut any spending) [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 429421]Ryan wants Austerity and that ain't working in Europe.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/krugman-the-austerity-agenda.html[/url]

Yes, this article is a few months old, but it carries the same message.

If I knew how to balance the budget I might been a politician or a banker.

Isn't it great that the Market is doing better now than when Obama first started? I think it was around 7500s.[/QUOTE]Anyone want to take me up on the S&P downgrade bet? I bet it goes down before it goes up! Credit rating downgrades is what happens when you spend and borrow money like drunken sailors to artificially prop up an economy. Keyenes was wrong, Hayek was right!

Get ready for some inflation too!

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, [b]the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits [from the] the public treasury[/b] with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

Alexander Fraser Tytler.

Cycle Of Democracy (1770)

[QUOTE=Jackson; 429427]"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, [b]the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits [from the] the public treasury[/b] With the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

Alexander Fraser Tytler.

Cycle Of Democracy (1770) [/QUOTE]So in summary, what the quote that Jackson posted is saying is that our Founding Fathers didn't know what the fuck they were doing. Pardon me if I beg to disagree. We've had 230 or so years of an existence proof to the contrary as we have become the most successful, prosperous nation on the planet. Our nation has always had a system of checks and balances to correct any movement that went too far in the area of too much freedom and not enough mandated responsibility, to too much government control at the expense of freedom. The fact is, we are in the process of correcting back the excesses of the Reagan-Bush 1 years, and if Obama and or his successor over-steps the mandate to restore some government regulation to the party, eventually we will correct back (and probably over-correct again).

"All government is essentially of the nature of a monarchy."

Andrew Fraser Tytler.

So now we know what kind of government Jackson really wants!

[QUOTE=Member #2041;429428]So in summary, what the quote that Jackson posted is saying is that our Founding Fathers didn't know what the fuck they were doing. Pardon me if I beg to disagree. We've had 230 or so years of an existence proof to the contrary as we have become the most successful, prosperous nation on the planet. Our nation has always had a system of checks and balances to correct any movement that went too far in the area of too much freedom and not enough mandated responsibility, to too much government control at the expense of freedom. The fact is, we are in the process of correcting back the excesses of the Reagan-Bush 1 years, and if Obama and or his successor over-steps the mandate to restore some government regulation to the party, eventually we will correct back (and probably over-correct again).[/QUOTE]Yada, yada, yada.

All you're doing now is trying to [u]convince[/u] [u]yourself[/u] that liberal policies will solve the world's problems.

The die is cast.

All we're going to be doing now is waiting and watching as the liberals drive the country over the cliff.

Of course, liberals don't care if they drive the country over the cliff, so long as [i]they're driving[/i].

Anyway, the only question for me now is what do I need to do to avoid getting hurt in the inevitable (and entirely predicitable) crash.

Thanks,

Jackson