POTUS spoiler

[Tom]

lower taxation should do that. more transactions, recruiting local instead of outsourcing etc. etc. etc. my POV.

I don't think it works that way. The tax cuts the past X decades would have done that. It didn't. The only thing that has happened is broader globalization at the expense of the working class.

The people pushing hard for that sort of plan are the same ones who have a lot to gain by it. It's a major conflict of interest. And I have not once seen anyone provide cold hard (verified, ie: multiple peer reviewed papers that weren't paid for by interested parties) math on how it will actually work.

They will continue to take their tax cuts, and find the lowest possible cost base. Why? because they make more money that way. Giving them more money, will not make them stay (ok, maybe some will).

Again, I can't ever see how less income magically means more income... It just doesn't work that way in the real world. You would have to see a significant amount of new transactions to make up for the lower taxes. Not only that, you'd probably have to pull in more from external sources as well (except the large corporations work VERY VERY VERY hard to keep money they make overseas, overseas, but not in the country it originated in).

[Thorin]

Here's an interesting look at the US federal debt and deficits over the last century: http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html.  It's interesting to see which presidents had no problems growing the national debt by huge amounts.  Wars seem to spur on high spending, which makes sense, but then that begs the question why the US doesn't try to avoid wars?

Whether Republicans actually fix the economy and whether the Democrats actually fix poverty, I'm not so sure.  As can be seen from the link above, Republicans spent a great deal of money, but that didn't necessarily equate to better economies.  Here's a list of the modern recessions (since the Republican party was originally the Democratic Republican party, and so only the more modern era has the Rep vs Dem dynamic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#Great_Depression_onward.  From this, it appears that both Republican and Democratic presidents have had recessions start during their terms, as well as they've had recessions stop during their terms.

The movie was The Running Man, Arnie refuses to open fire on unarmed civilians rioting over food, then the footage gets altered and he's branded the Butcher of Bakersfield.  Damn, I can remember way too much trivia from my youth.

I see you've mentioned Negative Income Tax a few times.  This idea is new to me, but as far as I can tell from the literature I've read it's just another wealth distribution effort.  Many proponents assume it's a linear tax rate, although there's no reason it could be progressive (higher rates at higher income).  However, this is an income tax and doesn't address the basic problem of reducing tax owing by reducing incoming and increasing capital gains, just as rich people do now.

My last point: imagine if Obama actually managed to drop the deficit to zero.  That'd be the first time since 1957 that the US government laid out less than its revenues.

[Tom]

My last point: imagine if Obama actually managed to drop the deficit to zero.  That'd be the first time since 1957 that the US government laid out less than its revenues.

Huh. I'd heard that there was a surplus during the Clinton years. And that Bush managed to more than wipe it out even before the wars started.

[onceawhile]

"And I have not once seen anyone provide cold hard math on how it will actually work."

"Again, I can't ever see how less income magically means more income... It just doesn't work that way in the real world."

no one disputes the existance of the laffer curve. They argue on where on it are we. It has to do with your tax base, people hide less, more transactions taking place. clearly it worked for Reagan. If you want to know the exact math you'll have to get a degree. I'm sorry, but I just don't have any other answer for you.

"I see you've mentioned Negative Income Tax a few times."

Well, at the moment people on welfare don't contribute much. They get money from the government and give partially back.

Negative tax will encourage them to work, even if it's not a "good job", this way - they'll contribute to the economy indirectly (which is very important. income tax accounts for a small portion), and we'll get more back.
I have no doubt people want to work, I don't think they're lazy. Objectively, there's no reason to work for less than what you get and it's hard to find a job that will pay off. Just like the rich, if you want something to happen you need to actively encourage it, AND it can solve some of the illegal workforce problem.
At the moment they have to give minimum amount of hours if they want to stay on welfare. I'm suggesting adding a bracket with negative tax, the more they'll work the more they'll get (until they'll move out of that income bracket). In addition, welfare is time-limited, while negative tax isn't and economically can justify itself more and cost less to the government.
It's rearranging the lower income structure. lowering welfare and encouraging more work.
it's a long term solution that can make capitalism work for the poor, and I like it.
Wiki says it's implemented in Israel now for a certain population, I couldn't find much, this seems interesting , but the taxation system as well as the welfare system is very very different.

I just think there's a lot to that idea, it makes a lot of sense and they should try and find a way to implement it. I don't think the current welfare system is good, although it has improved greatly over the years.

It goes to my idea of an "ideal solution". But as I said before, I'm far from an expert but it seems to be a better idea.

"Whether Republicans actually fix the economy and whether the Democrats actually fix poverty...."

Those are very interesting links. I'll go over them. If I'll have something smart to say, I will. At the moment, the bed is calling.

Wars seem to spur on high spending, which makes sense, but then that begs the question why the US doesn't try to avoid wars?

well, the real question is why have big armed forces. I assume it's clear why. Do you think Canada can allow itself a small Army if the US had a small one?
most countries have various protection alliances. The US, is the US. U.S.A. ... lol. self sufficient and all.
Wars are just another form of practice. How you keep your forces trained. Once you have the soldiers, it's quite the same and training is quite different from a real war as far as scenarios etc. so you just benefit.
Yes, you risk lives. That's the downside. On the plus side, you spread freedom and eliminate risks that will eventually reach home.

I was reading about communism recently. Did you know that the USSR financed the FLQ (indirectly of course)? financed a lot of other factions, well terrorists, world-wide. just thought it's an interesting tidbit.

foreign policy is a VERY long debate, VERY complicated and EXTREMELY charged.
so I won't go there.

I'll just add that the armed forces has also been implemented as an equator.
They will finance school for you, some plans before service, some plans after and there are other benefits (tax etc.) for spouses left behind etc. etc .

"My last point: imagine if Obama actually managed to drop the deficit to zero.  That'd be the first time since 1957 that the US government laid out less than its revenues."

I'll be very happy if he'll cut it in half. zero deficit.... that'll be something...


The running man...

wow. haven't seen that in a L O N G time. great movie. can't say I remember much of it though. I'll have to rewatch.

[Mr. Analog]

well, the real question is why have big armed forces. I assume it's clear why. Do you think Canada can allow itself a small Army if the US had a small one?
most countries have various protection alliances. The US, is the US. U.S.A. ... lol. self sufficient and all.
Wars are just another form of practice. How you keep your forces trained. Once you have the soldiers, it's quite the same and training is quite different from a real war as far as scenarios etc. so you just benefit.
Yes, you risk lives. That's the downside. On the plus side, you spread freedom and eliminate risks that will eventually reach home.

Wow, what? It's not clear why the USA has a large army, it's certainly not for border defense.

Canada has traditionally stepped up to the call of war when it came, which is how it should be. Prior to WWII we had half a dozen warships, by the end of the war we were the third largest navy. And so has been the story of our involvement in major conflicts we have been a part of. As well our forces have always been 100% volunteer, no press gangs, no military draft. Highly trained and motivated people doing what needs to be done.

You speak of waging war as training? Bosh. Training is Training. War is War. All you do is keep the boys in the field away from their jobs and families to bring home a lot of bad memories and ghosts wile creating ill-will internationally.

Maintaining a large force and actually fielding them puts fear in the mind of "lesser" powers and CREATES the problems you wish to avoid.

A large network of complex alliances and military buildup on many sides lead to one of the most costly conflicts in history, as Remembrance Day looms its good to remember there is a terrible cost in human life to sabre rattling, "small wars" and a near constant military buildup. Learn from the mistakes of Britain, Germany and Russia.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances with none."
~Thomas Jefferson

Wise words from a great man.

[Tom]

"And I have not once seen anyone provide cold hard math on how it will actually work."

"Again, I can't ever see how less income magically means more income... It just doesn't work that way in the real world."

no one disputes the existance of the laffer curve. They argue on where on it are we. It has to do with your tax base, people hide less, more transactions taking place. clearly it worked for Reagan. If you want to know the exact math you'll have to get a degree. I'm sorry, but I just don't have any other answer for you.

I see you ignored the rest of what I said. I'm sure the laffer curve exists. But I don't think it has and effect to the degree people want it to. It may make up for /some/ of the short fall from lowering taxes, but it can't possibly make up for all of it, and then more on top of it. People will still save, and the rich will still horde, and people will still try to avoid tax, all while using public services.

I think people who push for these things are too idealistic. They want something so bad that they imagine magical mechanisms that may make it work.

Like trickledown what a load of bullcrap that is. You know what /does/ work? Trickle up. It's how the economy /actually/ works. The general populace spends money, and it makes its way up the chain. The question is, can cutting taxes on low and middle income earners actually be made up by their spending increases? I'm not so sure. Maybe small tax cuts, but I doubt large ones will do it. Not without shifting the tax burden to service fees (road tolls) or more service specific taxes (road tax, gas tax, goods/services tax, property tax, etc), or they make significant cuts to spending, and I mean /significant/ in the hundreds of billions.

[onceawhile]

oh, I knew that's going to ignite things....

first - I have utter most respect for Canada and it's forces.
You've always took part, sent forces and did just.
But you're small.

Training is Training. War is War.

Exactly, if you want to win wars, you need experience. training isn't enough. think of it as beta- testing. Why do you think that whenever there's an earthquake or something every country sends a delegation, even if it's a small 3-person one?
It's not solidarity. they're there to learn. So, yes. if you want to have the best military in the world, you need to participate in wars. It's cruel. but true.

I'm not saying create them. that's god damn stupid. I'm talking about picking sides and participating in already existing wars. Aiding.

People die in training as well, training accidents or other human errors.
In some wars those deaths surpassed combat deaths link , with experience you'll reduce those, so for a large scale war you'll do better.

As for how big, how often, which wars to participate in, for how long etc.- oh, there were mistakes.

My point was that the wars don't necessarily costs extra (well, ammunition probably). It's how big you maintain your military and participating in war can be beneficial.

I'm not saying wars are good, they're not. In case this wasn't clear.
The question was why not avoid wars, since it costs extra. It's how big you maintain your forces, not in how many wars you participate.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances with none." 

Yep, self sufficient. Stand alone. That requires big armed forces - just in case.

A large network of complex alliances and military buildup on many sides lead to one of the most costly conflicts in history, as Remembrance Day looms its good to remember there is a terrible cost in human life to sabre rattling, "small wars" and a near constant military buildup. Learn from the mistakes of Britain, Germany and Russia

I'm not sure what you mean. Someone has to do it. We don't live in a rosy world.
like it or not, the US is the center of the world, and as such- at most risk. So being "the cops of the world" saves in the long run.
And being the center of the world means most susceptible to attacks. (Pearl Harbor?)
In addition, you need global stability for global trade.  kinda a pre-requisite. That's how you maintain it.

As I said before this is a charged subject, and quite off the election debate.
unless there's something you really want me to reply to, or something needs clarification, I prefer going back to my lurking now.

I feel like I'm hijacking the forum.

----------------------------------------

I see you ignored the rest of what I said. I'm sure the laffer curve exists. But I don't think it has and effect to the degree people want it to. It may make up for /some/ of the short fall from lowering taxes, but it can't possibly make up for all of it, and then more on top of it. People will still save, and the rich will still horde, and people will still try to avoid tax, all while using public services.

Tom, I simply don't understand you. not sure if it's me or you.

you said you don't understand how can tax reduction increase revenue because "It just doesn't work that way in the real world". Now you say the curve exist but doesn't have such an effect, "it can't possibly make up for all of it".
I gave you data that shows IT DOES, and DID. Historical facts that no one else disputes.
I gave you the model behind it, a link that explains (imo) the model in a clear and simple manner, it's a valid model, that both sides agree on.
if you want to argue if we're at it's ascend or descend, near the peak or not, how much it will affect - that's fine. Thorin already made those arguments, and I explained why I'm against raising taxes even if that's the case - in a very detailed way.

If you want me to answer something specific (assuming I can), or just reply to something - can you please do so in a form of a question? because I feel like I've already addressed everything in my VERY long posts.

I'm not trying to persuade you. Just to show you the logic behind my thought process, it might make you think about things more, re-evaluate. not trying to turn you to the "dark side".
Thorin made a good point about it not being detailed enough, I agreed and got more details (well, just asked a friend that is a professional in the field how it works). It was beneficial for me.
I also thought those links about D vs. R recessions were interesting, but going over the reasons for each, I didn't find anything that will change my opinion.
This whole thread started as "I can't see the logic behind the other side's views".
That's all.
Exchange of opinions triggering thought.

I keep getting from you the feeling you want me to prove you wrong - not my goal and I'm not going to do that.

The question is, can cutting taxes on low and middle income earners actually be made up by their spending increases? I'm not so sure. Maybe small tax cuts, but I doubt large ones will do it. Not without shifting the tax burden to service fees (road tolls) or more service specific taxes (road tax, gas tax, goods/services tax, property tax, etc), or they make significant cuts to spending, and I mean /significant/ in the hundreds of billions

I agree. However getting the rich to spend, keeping their money here, making new investments probably will. No one said it has to be big tax cuts. I wrote about it before.
Obviously tax cuts alone will not get us out of this crisis. But in my opinion raising tax on the rich will DECREASE revenues (from all the reasons I wrote before), and that's just creating another problem to fix, which has a big impact.

You've mentioned gas tax. Romney wanted to produce more locally. That mean reducing costs. Lets say that the cost for the consumer was 4$. producing locally decreased it to 3$ and you gave the consumer a new price of 3.5$. you've made money. He also wanted to approve the Keystoe XL line - again, reducing costs.
I'm not going to go over his plan. You can check his website on your own. It wasn't just tax cuts. The tax cuts are there to invigorate the economy. get the ball rolling. compensating for the immediate impact in other ways (including cutting government expenses) and let the economy recover.
After all, a free market has it's own rules. you shouldn't go against the flow, and you can't force it to go against it's nature.
You need to find a way to make it work using it's own rules. And that, imo, the big difference between the two.

I hope I'm done here 

[Thorin]

Yes, the USSR funded organizations that they hoped would help destabilize their opponents.  So have many other powerful countries throughout the ages, which without thinking too hard I can already think of examples for the UK, the US, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, Spain, Norway, the Ottoman Empire, and Saudi Arabia in the last few hundred years.  For instance, privateers were really just pirates getting paid to attack ships from certain countries.

As for the large-army discussion, it might be useful to read up on Dwight Eisenhower's description of the start and continuation of the military-industrial complex and his warnings of what could happen.  The UK thought of themselves as the "cops of the world" once upon a time, too, and look what they've shrunk to know compared to how large their empire used to be.

[Tom]

I see you ignored the rest of what I said. I'm sure the laffer curve exists. But I don't think it has and effect to the degree people want it to. It may make up for /some/ of the short fall from lowering taxes, but it can't possibly make up for all of it, and then more on top of it. People will still save, and the rich will still horde, and people will still try to avoid tax, all while using public services.

Tom, I simply don't understand you. not sure if it's me or you.

Mostly me probably. I admit I made a mistake when I said that I don't believe that lowering taxes didn't work /at all/ before (when I didn't know about the laffer curve). However I still don't think it can make up for the shortfall, and more on top of it.

you said you don't understand how can tax reduction increase revenue because "It just doesn't work that way in the real world". Now you say the curve exist but doesn't have such an effect, "it can't possibly make up for all of it".
I gave you data that shows IT DOES, and DID. Historical facts that no one else disputes.
I gave you the model behind it, a link that explains (imo) the model in a clear and simple manner, it's a valid model, that both sides agree on.
if you want to argue if we're at it's ascend or descend, near the peak or not, how much it will affect - that's fine. Thorin already made those arguments, and I explained why I'm against raising taxes even if that's the case - in a very detailed way.

If you want me to answer something specific (assuming I can), or just reply to something - can you please do so in a form of a question? because I feel like I've already addressed everything in my VERY long posts.

I'm not trying to persuade you. Just to show you the logic behind my thought process, it might make you think about things more, re-evaluate. not trying to turn you to the "dark side".
Thorin made a good point about it not being detailed enough, I agreed and got more details (well, just asked a friend that is a professional in the field how it works). It was beneficial for me.
I also thought those links about D vs. R recessions were interesting, but going over the reasons for each, I didn't find anything that will change my opinion.
This whole thread started as "I can't see the logic behind the other side's views".
That's all.
Exchange of opinions triggering thought.

I keep getting from you the feeling you want me to prove you wrong - not my goal and I'm not going to do that.

Well that's a disappointment. So basically you're not here for a proper discussion. Unfortunate. I was hoping you'd be more open minded than that. Its sorta a pet-peeve of mine when people get started having a discussion and are completely unwilling to consider the other's side.

The question is, can cutting taxes on low and middle income earners actually be made up by their spending increases? I'm not so sure. Maybe small tax cuts, but I doubt large ones will do it. Not without shifting the tax burden to service fees (road tolls) or more service specific taxes (road tax, gas tax, goods/services tax, property tax, etc), or they make significant cuts to spending, and I mean /significant/ in the hundreds of billions

I agree. However getting the rich to spend, keeping their money here, making new investments probably will. No one said it has to be big tax cuts. I wrote about it before.
Obviously tax cuts alone will not get us out of this crisis. But in my opinion raising tax on the rich will DECREASE revenues (from all the reasons I wrote before), and that's just creating another problem to fix, which has a big impact.

Purely opinion I think. The US is currently at its lowest tax rate in like 50 years. And it hasn't helped one bit as far as I can tell. If anything its cut revenue by hundreds of billions over at least the last decade.

You've mentioned gas tax. Romney wanted to produce more locally. That mean reducing costs. Lets say that the cost for the consumer was 4$. producing locally decreased it to 3$ and you gave the consumer a new price of 3.5$. you've made money. He also wanted to approve the Keystoe XL line - again, reducing costs.

I'm not entirely sure producing gas locally is cheaper. It costs a lot more to produce /anything/ in the US and Canada. Wages/StandardOfLiving is much higher. Safety requirements are a lot stricter, as are polution controls. It all adds up to significant costs. And in the end, the gas companies are still going to charge what ever OPEC is charging. Why? because they can, and they make more money that way.

I'm not going to go over his plan. You can check his website on your own. It wasn't just tax cuts. The tax cuts are there to invigorate the economy. get the ball rolling. compensating for the immediate impact in other ways (including cutting government expenses) and let the economy recover.
After all, a free market has it's own rules. you shouldn't go against the flow, and you can't force it to go against it's nature.
You need to find a way to make it work using it's own rules. And that, imo, the big difference between the two.

He didn't have a plan. He never once discussed his platform or his actual plans. Not to mention he constantly flip flopped.

You should look at what happened to Europe. They decided to take the "cut spending" route, and its hurt many countries massively. In the past it was done in the US as well. It hurt the general populace and economy quite badly then too. At least till "the new deal", then the economy started improving, and revenues went back up. You need to improve the economy before revenues can go back up. And chances are, it won't kick start itself, because its a self feeding cycle. The lower it gets, the lower it wants to get. Things cost more, people have less money, less is produced, cost goes up, people have less money, etc.

I hope I'm done here 

That's up to you.

Yes, the USSR funded organizations that they hoped would help destabilize their opponents.  So have many other powerful countries throughout the ages, which without thinking too hard I can already think of examples for the UK, the US, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, Spain, Norway, the Ottoman Empire, and Saudi Arabia in the last few hundred years.  For instance, privateers were really just pirates getting paid to attack ships from certain countries.

As for the large-army discussion, it might be useful to read up on Dwight Eisenhower's description of the start and continuation of the military-industrial complex and his warnings of what could happen.  The UK thought of themselves as the "cops of the world" once upon a time, too, and look what they've shrunk to know compared to how large their empire used to be.

The US's current behavior just makes other countries mad. If it weren't for their current habit of not meddling, they wouldn't be such a juicy target for other world leaders, causing the populace to rise up in hate.

Canada still gets involved when needed, but they don't hate us near as much as the US. In many countries they /love/ Canada. The same can't be said for the US.

[onceawhile]

As for the large-army discussion, it might be useful to read up on Dwight Eisenhower's description of the start and continuation of the military-industrial complex and his warnings of what could happen.

The of size of a military is measured by military expenditure as percentage of GDP.
worldBank
wikipedia


nowadays it's about half than it was during Eisenhower's era. link
I think we're ok for now.

The UK thought of themselves as the "cops of the world" once upon a time, too, and look what they've shrunk to now compared to how large their empire used to be

True, but it started with their economical decline. The rest of the world was growing and the UK which had ~25% of Global GDP, declined to ~10% or something like that. Their military wasn't big enough anymore since suddenly there were new players (Germany etc.), with their military.
Also, it's not like we're conquering and trying to be an empire, you know.
And what's the alternative? China taking over as the world's police??


--------------------

Well that's a disappointment. So basically you're not here for a proper discussion. Unfortunate. I was hoping you'd be more open minded than that.

I prefer ppl giving me facts and explaining their logic, letting me think and decide for myself.
not brainwash me.
I guess you can look at it your way....

Canada still gets involved when needed, but they don't hate us near as much as the US. In many countries they /love/ Canada. The same can't be said for the US

Officially you're a dominion of the UK, therefore all the hate is focused on them.
If they were to be attacked you are obligated to defend them.

In Yemen (the world's terror center) they hate the UK just as much.


The great depression was due to lack of regulation. Back then stock/market manipulation (e.g. selling back and forth to raise the price of the stock and then sell it to some poor sap who'll lose his money) was legal.
read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Securities_regulation

I hope I'm done here 

That's up to you.

I'll take that as my exit cue.


-----------------------

Thx for the "food for thought" (now and previously).

TAKE CARE :-)

[Tom]

Well that's a disappointment. So basically you're not here for a proper discussion. Unfortunate. I was hoping you'd be more open minded than that.

I prefer ppl giving me facts and explaining their logic, letting me think and decide for myself.
not brainwash me.
I guess you can look at it your way....

I did not intend or mean to "Brainwash" (that is typically an argument made by someone unwilling to consider other viewpoints btw). I was expressing my view's hoping to show a different view point, one which is considerably simpler, and more common sense.

To be honest I still don't get why everyone isn't doing as you suggest if it works so well. Sure politics makes people do stupid things, but not that stupid. It would make all the politicians and their rich friends richer (according to you), and improve the economy, which increases their likely hood of keeping their jobs extra long term. Its a win-win-win. And yet? It isn't done in any country on the planet. And if it has been done in the past, it isn't being done now.

So here's a question, the past few years have shown that Austerity doesn't work all that well, in fact it seems to do more harm than good (at least over the short term. It causes higher unemployment, loads of cut services and benefits for the needy). And on top of that, you would have the gov't reduce taxes under the belief that it would somehow induce people to spend more money. But they don't have money, its a recession, people are in save mode, and cutting their taxes by a few hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars a year really isn't going to do much as far as I can see. Forget the rich people for a moment, they get their money from the common folk spending money. If they aren't spending, the rich aren't earning, so the most important taxes to lower in your example would be the low and middle classes. Now we've already got services we can't pay for, people who aren't spending money because things cost more, and they aren't getting raises, and have gotten pay cuts, and an even greater budget shortfall than before.

To me its simple. Maybe its more complex than this, but people as a whole are pretty easy to predict (the individual not so much, but entire groups? sure).

That's just my $0.02.

Canada still gets involved when needed, but they don't hate us near as much as the US. In many countries they /love/ Canada. The same can't be said for the US

Officially you're a dominion of the UK, therefore all the hate is focused on them.

Uh, its a technicality only. I really doubt most people even know we're in the commonwealth. It's not something that means /anything/ anymore.

If they were to be attacked you are obligated to defend them.

Sure, and we have treaties with /many/ other countries that mean we come to their aid if they get attacked.

In Yemen (the world's terror center) they hate the UK just as much.

I doubt they hate Canada quite as much.

The great depression was due to lack of regulation. Back then stock/market manipulation (e.g. selling back and forth to raise the price of the stock and then sell it to some poor sap who'll lose his money) was legal.
read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Securities_regulation

Sure, but what kept it going? Locking down on spending. Funny you should mention Securities regulation. Deregulating that market is part of the cause of the last two major recessions. Banks allowed to do as they please with everyone's money.

And again I feel like I should mention Canada. We escaped with only a few bruises from the melt down due to not de-regulating our banking industry, and requiring people to be good for the loans that they get.

I hope I'm done here 

That's up to you.

I'll take that as my exit cue.


-----------------------

Thx for the "food for thought" (now and previously).

TAKE CARE :-)

You as well.