Largest economies.

[Clandestino]

http://img322.imageshack.us/img322/3382/worldbank2eb.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

just a cool chart of the economies of the world...

[RandomGuy]

Russia's economy is roughly as big as Belgium's.

[boutons_]

America is the biggest, richest, meanest sonofabitchin country in the history of the (6000 year old) universe.

Therefore, I, American citizen, by extensiion, wrapped in the American flag, am the biggest, richest, meanest sonofabitchin dude in the universe.

You right-wing rabble are so emotionally stunted it's hilarious, intellectually blunted by your Blind Fath in dubya and all things red-state ignorant, and finally, so pitiful.

[01Snake]

America is the biggest, richest, meanest sonofabitchin country in the history of the (6000 year old) universe.

Therefore, I, American citizen, by extensiion, wrapped in the American flag, am the biggest, richest, meanest sonofabitchin dude in the universe.

You right-wing rabble are so emotionally stunted it's hilarious, intellectually blunted by your Blind Fath in dubya and all things red-state ignorant, and finally, so pitiful.

He simply posted a chart he thought was informative. Leave it to you to turn it into a chance to Bush Bash.

You're pathetic!

[scott]

Russia's economy is roughly as big as Belgium's.

Belgium makes some of the world's best beer... Russia makes... ?

[RandomGuy]

Belgium makes some of the world's best beer... Russia makes... ?

Nuclear waste?

Vodka?

[scott]

Potato juice!

[Clandestino]

America is the biggest, richest, meanest sonofabitchin country in the history of the (6000 year old) universe.

Therefore, I, American citizen, by extensiion, wrapped in the American flag, am the biggest, richest, meanest sonofabitchin dude in the universe.

You right-wing rabble are so emotionally stunted it's hilarious, intellectually blunted by your Blind Fath in dubya and all things red-state ignorant, and finally, so pitiful.

:lmao

wtf is up with this guy... a chart showing the largest economies of the world and we get this babble? :lol

and i'm not even a right winger.. i fucking voted for clinton, AND BUSH... believe abortion should be legal, feel we shouldn't torment illegal aliens, etc... i can't be construed as left or right...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

You do realize .1% of the population owns 98% of that red bar right?

[Yonivore]

You do realize .1% of the population owns 98% of that red bar right?
Actually, most of that red bar is represented by small business. But, I'd like to see your numbers...unless, of course you're managing exstatic's 401k.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'll show mine when you show yours, my fellow christian.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

okay, i found that the highest ten percent paid earn 30% of that red bar.

[Yonivore]

okay, i found that the highest ten percent paid earn 30% of that red bar.
That red bar is the GDP. It's a little more complex than simply adding up the tax receipts. But, it's nice that you recognize that wealthiest 10% pay 30% of the tax debt. Now, if you keep looking down whatever chart you got that from you'll find that almot 50% of Americans pay 0%.

Here, do some studying: http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Oh, I get it I get it, so you're saying because they earn more they shouldn't be taxed more.

[Yonivore]

Oh, I get it I get it,...
No, no you don't. We weren't talking taxes, we're talking GDP.

... so you're saying because they earn more they shouldn't be taxed more.
Since you bring it up; I tink everyone should be taxed equally. 10% of a billion is more than 10% of a dollar but fair to both.

[scott]

Since you bring it up; I tink everyone should be taxed equally. 10% of a billion is more than 10% of a dollar but fair to both.

Everyone is taxed equally. Bill Gates pays the same tax rate on his first $50k as I do.

[Yonivore]

Everyone is taxed equally. Bill Gates pays the same tax rate on his first $50k as I do.
And then?

[DarkReign]

"Let me shed a tear for Bill Gates and the check he writes to the Fed every year.

I cry unabashedly for those poor, poor filthy rich people and all those big bad taxes they pay."

Not exactly a podium you will get elected on.

[Yonivore]

"Let me shed a tear for Bill Gates and the check he writes to the Fed every year.

I cry unabashedly for those poor, poor filthy rich people and all those big bad taxes they pay."

Not exactly a podium you will get elected on.
Until you understand those billions, could be paying wages, investing in start ups, buying services and capital (which benefits the sellers of services and capital -- who usually aren't of the Bill Gates type), or funding the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, the single most philanthropic organization in the history of the planet.

[Extra Stout]

Until you understand those billions, could be paying wages, investing in start ups, buying services and capital (which benefits the sellers of services and capital -- who usually aren't of the Bill Gates type), or funding the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, the single most philanthropic organization in the history of the planet.

Ah, yes, the ideological trade-off. The private sector when it's all said and done is more efficient with its investments than the public sector.

So, high taxes to fund a large public sector yields a less robust economy than low taxes to fund a small public sector.

However, the least efficient way of doing things is to have low taxes and just borrow to fund the large public sector. The festivities under that setup last for a while, but eventually it makes your economy collapse.

And of course, that's what we're doing.

[DarkReign]

....or funding the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, the single most philanthropic organization in the history of the planet.

Hey, if I were the single richest man to ever walk the face of the earth, I would be the greatest philanthropist too. Anything for a modicum of a tax break.

Dont be fooled guy. I dont know what you do in real life, but I doubt you have intimate knowledge of how rich people operate. Serious doubts. I dont mean specifics, because I never cared, but to have actual conversation about economics, inheritance tax, Bill Gates and his philanthropy, all the foundations setup by these local rich scumbags cheating on everything to squeeze what money they can, etc.

Its all bullshit. But if it was simplified, alot of lawyers would be out of jobs.

Flat tax wouldnt ever work. Ever.

If I make $100k, taking $20k is a bummer, but manageable.

If I make $30k, and you take $6k, thats a friggin problem for those people. That same individual is the person who gets money back at year end, which wouldnt be the case with the proposed flat tax.

Unless there were a graduated system with floors and ceilings, it just wouldnt work.

Look, I am in the upper echelon of income. But that doesnt make me blind to the fact that the people hurting for money cant spare anymore for the greater good. People like me can, and I would willingly do it.

[Yonivore]

Ah, yes, the ideological trade-off. The private sector when it's all said and done is more efficient with its investments than the public sector.

So, high taxes to fund a large public sector yields a less robust economy than low taxes to fund a small public sector.

However, the least efficient way of doing things is to have low taxes and just borrow to fund the large public sector. The festivities under that setup last for a while, but eventually it makes your economy collapse.

And of course, that's what we're doing.
You lost me.

The cut in the tax rate has actually increased the federal tax revenues that are funding public sector investments. You're not moving the monies from the public sector to the private sector, you've increased both sector's available funds...hence, exponential increase in GDP.

It worked for Kennedy, Reagan, and now Bush.

The problem is that spending has risen proportionally...well, not quite proportionally since we're actually seeing the deficit drop somewhat. If the Congress would just quit spending the booty that results from this phenomenon, we'd see some real debt reduction and budget surpluses.

It's not the tax policy, stupid; it's the spending.

[Yonivore]

Hey, if I were the single richest man to ever walk the face of the earth, I would be the greatest philanthropist too. Anything for a modicum of a tax break.

Dont be fooled guy. I dont know what you do in real life, but I doubt you have intimate knowledge of how rich people operate like I do. Serious doubts.
Don't get me wrong, the filthy 1% of the rich practically bathe in excess. But, that doesn't diminish the fact they contribute disproportionately, and exponentially, more to the economic engine of this country than the other 99%. Period. It also doesn't diminish the fact that if you cut their taxes, they have disproportionately, and exponentially, more to contribute to the economic engine of this country.

What is Microsoft's payroll? Would those people be better off if Bill Gates was poor? How about all the supplier to Microsoft? Would they be better off? How about he people who build the yachts, the gawdy homes, and the stretch limousines? How 'bout those who mow his yard, sit his children? Or, the caviar harvester? The lobster fisherman? The Tiffany lamp maker?

You accuse me of not understanding the rich. You obviously think they just sit on their riches. I'd rather their tax dollars go to pay the wages of a person than go to pay the rent of an unemployed person in Section 8 housing.

If he's not giving it to the federal government, he's spending it on these excesses...which benefit the rest of us. That's why GDP is up and unemployment is down.

[Yonivore]

Its all bullshit. But if it was simplified, alot of lawyers would be out of jobs.
Oh well. A class of people for which I have little sympathy. Maybe they could do the work all the illegals are coming across the border to do?


Flat tax wouldnt ever work. Ever.
Who said I was proposiing a flat tax? Although it would be better than the current regressive tax plan, which also doesn't work, I was merely illustrating the current plan is punitive to the rich and a complete non-burden to the rest. That's unfair -- and, it harms the economy.


If I make $100k, taking $20k is a bummer, but manageable.

If I make $30k, and you take $6k, thats a friggin problem for those people. That same individual is the person who gets money back at year end, which wouldnt be the case with the proposed flat tax.
You could lower the tax rate to 2% if everyone paid proportionally. But, again, I'm not advocating a tax rate.

I'm more in favor of a consumption tax-type plan where you pay taxes on the goods and services you can afford to buy.

After removing the hidden tax already imbedded due to the current tax scheme, prices would remain the same, or drop, and the government would be fully funded and no one would pay income tax.


Unless there were a graduated system with floors and ceilings, it just wouldnt work.
Gee, isn't that what we have?


Look, I am in the upper echelon of income. But that doesnt make me blind to the fact that the people hurting for money cant spare anymore for the greater good.
Unless it lowered consumer prices while not costing them a penny.


People like me can, and I would willingly do it.
My favorite line from rich people. So, do you pay more than your annual tax bill? Because, Uncle Sam will take your check.

Why don't you do something smart with your excess money. Invest it in a start up business so those who would normally only get about 30% of the government handout, processed through Welfare, can put 100% of your money to work.

[Yonivore]

Here, this is what I advocate.

http://www.fairtax.org/

As the website says, The Fair Tax Plan:

Abolishes the IRS
Closes all tax loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
Maintains our current Social Security and Medicare benefits
Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
Allows American products to compete fairly
Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck

[Extra Stout]

You lost me.

The cut in the tax rate has actually increased the federal tax revenues that are funding public sector investments. You're not moving the monies from the public sector to the private sector, you've increased both sector's available funds...hence, exponential increase in GDP.

It worked for Kennedy, Reagan, and now Bush.

The problem is that spending has risen proportionally...well, not quite proportionally since we're actually seeing the deficit drop somewhat. If the Congress would just quit spending the booty that results from this phenomenon, we'd see some real debt reduction and budget surpluses.

It's not the tax policy, stupid; it's the spending.

That works up to a point. You revenues do not approach infinity as your tax rate approaches zero. There is an optimal tax rate that maximizes revenue.

And I was complaining primarily about the spending.

[Yonivore]

That works up to a point. You revenues do not approach infinity as your tax rate approaches zero. There is an optimal tax rate that maximizes revenue.
It's called the Laffer Curve.


And I was complaining primarily about the spending.
Who isn't? But, I think it's important to separate the two. Otherwise, you end up like exstatic who thinks the tax cuts resulted in a bigger debt.

[Yonivore]

In the spring of 2003, ahead of the Bush tax cuts, Nancy Pelosi said:


“None of these tax cuts is affordable. None of them creates jobs, and they are not fair. All of them do damage to our long-term economic growth and contribute to the national deficit.”
Larry Kudlow dissects (http://kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/2006/07/eating-crow.html) this wonderfully wrong comment and provides plenty of data to refute it.



“None of them creates jobs…”
Actually, since the passage of Bush’s tax cuts, over 5 million jobs have been created in the U.S. Unemployment dropped from 6.3 percent to 4.6 percent. Simply put, Americans are working.


“All of them do damage to our long-term economic growth…”
Wrong. The economy has grown at a 4.0 percent annualized rate, way above historical averages. $13 trillion of new wealth has been created during this time.


“All of them…contribute to the national deficit.”
Wrong again. Amid a surge in tax collections, the Bush administration cut its estimate of this year's budget deficit today by 30 percent to $296 billion. The projected shortfall is down from the $423 billion deficit the White House forecast five months ago and represents 2.3 percent of gross domestic product, according to the OMB. Government revenue has risen 13 percent so far this year, driven by higher than expected tax receipts as the economy grew at an annual rate of 5.6 percent in the first quarter, the fastest in almost three years (when the tax cuts were introduced). Individual tax receipts were almost $60 billion higher than expected because of the rise in personal income. Corporate tax receipts were over $50 billion higher than expected.

Despite stubborn naysayers like Mrs. Pelosi, the pro-growth, supply-side tax cut formula is a winner. It has been proven right, yet again.

The numbers tell it all. American workers thrive and businesses flourish when they’re able to keep more of their income. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was absolutely right in his confirmation hearings, low taxes really do change behavior. And, as the New York Sun pointed out yesterday, “It’s official – Arthur Laffer wins.” (http://www.nysun.com/article/35673)
Good stuff.

[scott]

And then?

I pay the same tax rate on my first million and he pays on his too.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

No, no you don't. We weren't talking taxes, we're talking GDP.

Since you bring it up; I tink everyone should be taxed equally. 10% of a billion is more than 10% of a dollar but fair to both.



You're a fuckin idiot dude, you brought up taxes to begin with.

Durrrr yooooni's weeee toddddd ittttt

[Yonivore]

okay, i found that the highest ten percent paid earn 30% of that red bar.
Maybe I misinterpreted this illiterate statement of yours. I've never been very good at divining the idiot mind.

[DarkReign]

I actually like that idea and link you provided.

I am no economist by any stretch though, so take that for what its worth.

[Yonivore]

I actually like that idea and link you provided.

I am no economist by any stretch though, so take that for what its worth.
Sign the petition! Let's get this party started.

[RandomGuy]

So, high taxes to fund a large public sector yields a less robust economy than low taxes to fund a small public sector.



This is where I depart from a lot of fiscal conservatives.

If this were true, how does one explain the poor performance of countries like Somalia that have NO formal taxes whatsoever?

I think that a fairly robust central/federal government is needed to provide basic services and a framework for a healthy complex economy, much like bones provide a framework for everything else to work with and within.

Those who would completely gut the federal government have only to look at the failed Articles of Confederation experiment to see why such a gutting would cripple the US economy, rather than "free" it of "overregulation".

[101A]

You lost me.

The cut in the tax rate has actually increased the federal tax revenues that are funding public sector investments. You're not moving the monies from the public sector to the private sector, you've increased both sector's available funds...hence, exponential increase in GDP.

It worked for Kennedy, Reagan, and now Bush.

The problem is that spending has risen proportionally...well, not quite proportionally since we're actually seeing the deficit drop somewhat. If the Congress would just quit spending the booty that results from this phenomenon, we'd see some real debt reduction and budget surpluses.

It's not the tax policy, stupid; it's the spending.


Your logic (as mine used to) is missing a component.

I believe in as low of taxes in possible, and am all in favor of a flat tax.

But the deficit spending is one of the reasons the economy appears so strong right now. Not that it's bad, but the spending makes it appear better.

What you fail to acknowledge is that the majority of that govt. over-spending is ALSO put right back into our own economy; providing jobs, profits, and addl. tax revenues. Essentially it's like buying a house in a neighborhood that is above your means. You can keep up with the Jones's for a while with a second mortgage, maxing out your credit cards, etc...you appear to have as much income as everyone around you, by deficit spending. Can't go on forever, though. Eventually you have to cut your spending, or increase your income w/o increasing spending to catch up (which is against human nature).

Nothing wrong with cutting taxes; it IS good for the economy; as is spending money not earned (in the short run) - the combination supercharges the economy, but at some point the debt has to be dealt with.

[Yonivore]

Your logic (as mine used to) is missing a component.

I believe in as low of taxes in possible, and am all in favor of a flat tax.

But the deficit spending is one of the reasons the economy appears so strong right now. Not that it's bad, but the spending makes it appear better.

What you fail to acknowledge is that the majority of that govt. over-spending is ALSO put right back into our own economy; providing jobs, profits, and addl. tax revenues. Essentially it's like buying a house in a neighborhood that is above your means. You can keep up with the Jones's for a while with a second mortgage, maxing out your credit cards, etc...you appear to have as much income as everyone around you, by deficit spending. Can't go on forever, though. Eventually you have to cut your spending, or increase your income w/o increasing spending to catch up (which is against human nature).

Nothing wrong with cutting taxes; it IS good for the economy; as is spending money not earned (in the short run) - the combination supercharges the economy, but at some point the debt has to be dealt with.
Deficit spending, at $400 billion revised to $296 billion, is a drop in the bucket of a $12 trillion dollar GDP.

[RandomGuy]

You could lower the tax rate to 2% if everyone paid proportionally. But, again, I'm not advocating a tax rate.

Source? I seem to remember a GAO study that indicated otherwise. I will try to find it.


Why don't you do something smart with your excess money. Invest it in a start up business so those who would normally only get about 30% of the government handout, processed through Welfare, can put 100% of your money to work.

What percentage of new business start-ups fail?

[RandomGuy]

Who isn't? But, I think it's important to separate the two. Otherwise, you end up like exstatic who thinks the tax cuts resulted in a bigger debt.

The tax cuts did result in a bigger debt. They increased federal deficits over a period of time and added to that debt.

[RandomGuy]

Here, this is what I advocate.

http://www.fairtax.org/

As the website says, The Fair Tax Plan:

Abolishes the IRS
Closes all tax loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
Maintains our current Social Security and Medicare benefits
Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
Allows American products to compete fairly
Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck

Wonderful things. Really.

Tell me:

What is "income"?

[101A]

Deficit spending, at $400 billion revised to $296 billion, is a drop in the bucket of a $12 trillion dollar GDP.

Neither 2.5% OR $300 Billion is a drop in the bucket.

[Yonivore]

Neither 2.5% OR $300 Billion is a drop in the bucket.
Nor is it the reason the economy "looks so strong" as was asserted in the post to which I was responding. In that sense, I believe it is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

[101A]

When the health of the economy is measured in %'s that appear insignificant, when in fact they are not; those numbers consitute quite more than a drop in the bucket, Yoni.

4.5% unemployment is great - 2.5% more is 7% - almost catastrophic.

Economic growth of 2% is really good; 4.5% and the fed is hiking interest rates out of sight, and -.5% has ALL of us dangling from shower rods!

2.5% is huge.

[Yonivore]

When the health of the economy is measured in %'s that appear insignificant, when in fact they are not; those numbers consitute quite more than a drop in the bucket, Yoni.

4.5% unemployment is great - 2.5% more is 7% - almost catastrophic.

Economic growth of 2% is really good; 4.5% and the fed is hiking interest rates out of sight, and -.5% has ALL of us dangling from shower rods!

2.5% is huge.
You're not listening...this isn't some "delicate balance" argument.

The poster said that deficit spending was a reason the economy looked so good right now.

Take away that $300 billion and you still have a GDP of $11.7 trillion. Still phenomenal. In other words, the deficit spending is a drop in the GDP bucket.

[Extra Stout]

This is where I depart from a lot of fiscal conservatives.

If this were true, how does one explain the poor performance of countries like Somalia that have NO formal taxes whatsoever?

I think that a fairly robust central/federal government is needed to provide basic services and a framework for a healthy complex economy, much like bones provide a framework for everything else to work with and within.

Those who would completely gut the federal government have only to look at the failed Articles of Confederation experiment to see why such a gutting would cripple the US economy, rather than "free" it of "overregulation".
Strawman.

[smeagol]

Deficit spending, at $400 billion revised to $296 billion, is a drop in the bucket of a $12 trillion dollar GDP.
That's one year's deficit. What's the accumulated deficit (i.e., what's the total Federal Government's debt?). I'm sure it's not a drop in the bucket.

[Yonivore]

That's one year's deficit. What's the accumulated deficit (i.e., what's the total Federal Government's debt?). I'm sure it's not a drop in the bucket.
That's one year's GDP too.

So, tell me where this editorial errs:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008640

[smeagol]

That's one year's GDP too.

So, tell me where this editorial errs:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008640
No editorial error.

I'm just stating that deficits are financed with debt, which accumulates year over year. At the end of the day, it does not really matter what your GDP is against one year's deficit but what is the repayment capacity of your debt vis a vis the revenues you generate (your tax reciepts) and what your GDP is against your total debt (accumulated deficits).

[DarkReign]

http://www.namnewsnetwork.org/read.php?id=5746

how'd you spend your dollar today?

:rollin

That tells me I have to move to Argentina.

Id be rich, bitch!

[RandomGuy]

Strawman.

How so?

The argument goes that government needs to do/be less, i.e. "small enough to drown in the bathtub"

Somalia is an example of government that does nothing.

The Articles of Confederation is a somewhat less drastic example of this.

If one wants a different tack in support of federalism, take insurance regulation for example.

There is no mean old central bureaucracy in Washinton that provides regulation of insurance. Instead you have each and every state (some with very little resources) instituting 50 sets of laws and with 50 sets of smaller state agencies that enforce (or not) insurance regulation. It is a nightmare for larger companies to have to deal with licensing, regulation, and reporting.

I really dislike "strawman" arguments and wasn't attempting to make one. I was merely pointing out what happens in the absence of a government as some libertarians call for.

[Yonivore]

He knows what he's talking about.
No, he doesn't.


I'm just stating that deficits are financed with debt, which accumulates year over year. At the end of the day, it does not really matter what your GDP is against one year's deficit but what is the repayment capacity of your debt vis a vis the revenues you generate (your tax reciepts) and what your GDP is against your total debt (accumulated deficits).
It doesn't accumulate. Federal debt generally takes the form of Treasury bonds held by the public. These are bought, sold, traded, redeemed, etc...but, they have value and are important to the economy. U.S. debt is an investment. How cool is that?

Since 1965, publicly held debt has averaged 31.1 percent of gross domestic product (the low was 18.3 percent in 1974; the high, 44.4 percent in 1993 -- I don't recall the screams for Clinton to do something about the debt then, nor do I recall any hand-wringing). This year, working from government projections, it will be around 32 percent—hardly a problem.

And its drop from the 1993 peak to 28 percent of GDP eight years later shows that, with a little less spending and a little more economic growth -- just tweaking, nothing dramatic, it can quickly plummet (even, conceivably, to levels that might create problems for the capital markets, where U.S. government bonds play a vital role in sophisticated portfolio strategies).

But, in fact, there is a real debt problem. A major and potentially crushing one. It turns on what Washington is committed to spending in the future on Social Security and (especially) Medicare, beyond what the taxes dedicated to those programs are expected to bring in.

A 2003 study from the American Enterprise Institute translated the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security into easy-to-understand terms. What, the authors asked, is the present-value equivalent in bonded debt not covered by current reserves or taxes of the government’s future obligations under Social Security and Medicare? Their answer? $7 trillion for Social Security, $36.6 trillion for Medicare. [There may be better numbers out there but, this was the first I came across and I'm confident, if anything, they're more ominous]

That’s almost 10 times the size of the current “federal debt."

That's why conservatives believe the privitization of Social Security and meaningful reform of entitlement programs are vital to the continued economic health of this country.

It's not about the current debt, that's within norms; it's about the over-promised future we won't be able to afford...even in a healthy economy.

[RandomGuy]

[the federal debt] doesn't accumulate.
:lmao

http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm
Data in the Administration’s own Mid-Session Budget Review indicates that the tax cuts have played a larger role than all other legislation enacted since the start of 2001 in the emergence of the current sizable budget deficit, and that the tax cuts account for the majority of the current deficit.

The Mid-Session Budget Review, released July 30, shows that to date, the tax cuts have accounted for 57 percent of the cost of all legislation enacted since the Administration took office. The tax cuts thus have contributed more to the worsening fiscal picture than all other new government policies combined — more than the sum of the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terrorism, increases in homeland security, and all domestic spending increases.

[RandomGuy]

It's not about the current debt, that's within norms;

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debtfull.gif


Norms if you are invading france in 1944 with most of the workforce in the military...

(snippy comment deleted by author)

[RandomGuy]

That's one year's GDP too.

So, tell me where this editorial errs:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008640


I agree with the section from the above editorial:
Democrats are right that the White House February estimate of a $423 billion budget deficit in Fiscal Year 2006 was inflated, perhaps to be able to claim progress later this election year.

But to know where this OPINION peice errs is actually pretty simple.

It attributes, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, economic growth of the last few years almost exclusively to the tax cuts.

It ignores studies that have shown that the effect of those tax cuts were less than what proponents, such as yourself, and the WSJ claim.

http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm
A study by Mark Zandi, the chief economist at the independent economic research firm Economy.com, finds the tax cuts were poorly designed for purposes of stimulating the economy.

It also claims that the tax cuts were responsible for all business investment in the last few periods, totally ignoring the fact that companies have been not only pretty tight-fisted in investments, but even with the record profit levels that increased productivity has offered, haven't been investing in a way that would really help the economy.

Large businesses have been doing record stock buy-backs with those profits, essentially saying that they don't know what to invest those profits in that would make more than giving the profits out to the shareholders. This strongly indicatest that this wave of "investment" from the tax cuts either doesn't really exist or is not attributable to those tax cuts.

[RandomGuy]

Since 1965, publicly held debt has averaged 31.1 percent of gross domestic product (the low was 18.3 percent in 1974; the high, 44.4 percent in 1993 --

AVERAGED? Prove your fact.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debtfull.gif

[RandomGuy]

Quite frankly most of Yoni's bullshit on this topic is just that:

Bullshit.

The more one actually knows about the topics that he brings up the more of a psuedo-intellectual he becomes:
--reliance on opinion pieces to support arguments
--lopsided arguments that either ignore obvious drawbacks, or dismiss them outright without any intellectually honest reason for doing so
--continual diminution of anybody who disagrees with his viewpoint
--reliance on single source material that generally has an admitted bias
--never admitting he is wrong about anything
--never admitting that others might know more about any given topic than he does


The list goes on.

Here is a good list of what REAL critical thinkers actually do:

Critical thinkers: distinguish between fact and opinion; ask questions; make detailed observations; uncover assumptions and define their terms; and make assertions based on sound logic and solid evidence.

Critical thinking is best understood as the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own thinking. This requires that they develop sound criteria and standards for analyzing and assessing their own thinking and routinely use those criteria and standards to improve its quality.

Simply do a brief google search under the topic of critical thinking or better yet logical fallacies and Yonivore's shortcomings become readily apparent.

[xrayzebra]

^^Spoken like a true poster. The resident expert, right? Horse hockey. Most of us
have a hard time with balancing our bank account, but we are going to attempt to
show everyone else what experts we are on the national debt.

There has been an imbalance on nearly every aspect of our balance of payments,
national debt and any other aspect of our national budget since I can remember. Which
happens to be a long time. Nothing really bad has happened, except for the
Carter years, when the interest rate and inflation was very serious problems.

After he was voted out of office and some folks with a little common sense got
back into office things have gone pretty well.

So in my humble opinion, give it a rest. I have seen nothing that really impressed
me very much in any of the arguments.

[RandomGuy]

^^Spoken like a true poster. The resident expert, right? Horse hockey. Most of us
have a hard time with balancing our bank account, but we are going to attempt to
show everyone else what experts we are on the national debt.

There has been an imbalance on nearly every aspect of our balance of payments,
national debt and any other aspect of our national budget since I can remember. Which
happens to be a long time. Nothing really bad has happened, except for the
Carter years, when the interest rate and inflation was very serious problems.

After he was voted out of office and some folks with a little common sense got
back into office things have gone pretty well.

So in my humble opinion, give it a rest. I have seen nothing that really impressed
me very much in any of the arguments.

Heh, a "true poster".

You will note that the worst I tend to say about anybody is that they don't seem to be a good critical thinker. I am as guilty as anybody at times of losing my temper and "flaming" but I try to avoid it, if possible, and will go back and edit out these bits. Insults merely detract from reasoned debate, and serve little purpose.

The only real requirement is that one do a bit of reading and educate themselves on basic macroeconomics. I understand that people have their own opinions, and as long as you have some data or reasoning to form a basis for an opinion, this is a good thing, because it allows ideas to be evaluated based on merit.

If nothing I have presented "impresses" you, here is a question:

What would impress you?

What kind of evidence would you consider sufficient to prove the thesis that the tax cuts were not really as effectual as the WSJ editorial claims they are?

[scott]

It doesn't accumulate.

...

???

!!!

[RandomGuy]

...

???

!!!

my thoughts exactly

I sense a new siggy in the offing...
:lol

[Extra Stout]

I really dislike "strawman" arguments and wasn't attempting to make one. I was merely pointing out what happens in the absence of a government as some libertarians call for.
Since I was not arguing for the absence of government, but rather for a smaller public sector, that would make yours a strawman argument.

Don't think Somalia. Think... privatizing NASA and other non-essential government initiatives.

[smeagol]

No, he doesn't.

Actually I do. It's you who seems to be clueless.


It doesn't accumulate.

:lol And it's you who knows about the deficit and the governements debt? :lol


Federal debt generally takes the form of Treasury bonds held by the public.

It's still debt. The Government still needs to repay it. A bond is a form of IOU, in case you didn't know.


These are bought, sold, traded, redeemed, etc...but, they have value and are important to the economy. U.S. debt is an investment. How cool is that?

Sure all this is true. I actually own US T-bills. Nevertheless, if the US Government issues to many bills, notes and bonds, it's incurring in additional DEBT. If you borrow too much, you might not be able to repay it. This is how it works for people, and this is how it works for Governments. I know what I'm talking about. I'm from Argentina.

[Clandestino]

Sure all this is true. I actually own US T-bills. Nevertheless, if the US Government issues to many bills, notes and bonds, it's incurring in additional DEBT. If you borrow too much, you might not be able to repay it. This is how it works for people, and this is how it works for Governments. I know what I'm talking about. I'm from Argentina.

:lol