OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[pk500]

Speaking of fantasy, where are these mythical companies capable of replacing the large-scale infrastructure?

There are toll roads in the US and other industrialized countries. But most of the roads are financed by govt. The reason is, industry would cherry pick a few of the most profitable roads and under-serve other areas.

Mythical? The state of Indiana just leased out the running of its toll roads to a private company for a large sum. That same company, a Spanish-Australian firm, also runs the Chicago Skyway.

Ed Rendell is trying to do the same thing to the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Of course, the Teamsters in Pa. are freaking out. They'll lose their cush state-funded turnpike jobs if a private firm comes in and runs the highway with a modicum of efficiency.

I suppose you liked phone service better when there was just AT&T and no one else, right? And you think Amtrak would be run less efficiently by a private company that relied on safe, on-time service with modern trains to make a profit instead of just sticking out its hand toward Congress for more funding?

It's pretty pointless to continue this debate. You love big government; I detest it. No amount of typing at this forum ever will change that.

Take care,
PK

[XXXIV]

. You love big government; I detest it. No amount of typing at this forum ever will change that.

That is an under statement...this dude is far left of Joseph Stalin.

[wco81]

Mythical as in capable of doing it on a large-scale and being able to cover as much geography as the govt. has forced itself to do.

You'll get the same situation as telecom. People in rural and less affluent areas will not get served or see existing roads maintained.

There's a reason why govts. still provides for infrastructure in most big, industrialized countries. There is no example of a prosperous country which has privatized most of its infrastructure. They've partially privatized things like telecom and airlines but not basic things like most of their roads or mass transit.

Govt. as it's presently constituted may not be perfect or tolerable for some cranks. But there's no better alternative, unless you want the country to become some third-rate country or just a continent of autonomous states too small in scale to approach economic, political and cultural prominence.

[pk500]

Govt. as it's presently constituted may not be perfect or tolerable for some cranks.

Oh, so someone who favors small government is a crank. And someone like you, who favors big government that does everything for its citizens and businesses, is a genius.

Now I know the score.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Oh and was it the UAW who failed to learn the lessons of the '80s?

Did the union design the cars that nobody wanted (other than trucks and SUVs)?

Did it force Ford to abandon the quality standards?

Did it manage the cost structure or force the Big 3 to sign those contracts?

Did it pay out millions to executives while the companies bled red ink?


And why would you be opposed to lifetime health care for its employees? Wouldn't that be that many more people who wouldn't have to be on Medicare?

[wco81]

Govt. as it's presently constituted may not be perfect or tolerable for some cranks.

Oh, so someone who favors small government is a crank. And someone like you, who favors big government that does everything for its citizens and businesses, is a genius.

Now I know the score.

Take care,
PK

Where did "genius" come from?

Crank as in the small groups of energized people tilting at windmills to return the nation to the pre-industrialized years before income taxes and modernization.

Why the antagonism to the current system which has produced economic, cultural and diplomatic preeminence?

If you look at some of these groups and individuals, who write screeds for "fair tax" or overtly flout tax laws, "cranks" may be a relatively generous term.

[FatPitcher]

Where did "genius" come from?

Crank as in the small groups of energized people tilting at windmills to return the nation to the pre-industrialized years before income taxes and modernization.

You are aware that the Industrial Revolution occured during the 19th century, aren't you?

Anyway, much of this boils down to morals. People like wco81 see income inequality as a moral injustice that harms society. Furthermore, they think that their moral views are more important than the economic freedom of individuals, i.e., that money should forcibly be taken from productive individuals and given to less productive ones. They think that individuals have an inherent, moral right to things like expensive procedures with the latest medical technology and again are perfectly willing to infringe on lesser rights such as the right to property to protect that right.

And then they complain about social conservatives trying to legislate morality

[Feanor]

It's hard to believe people can still go on about the inefficiency of "big government" with a straight face when big business has proven itself to be just as wasteful, if not more so. And with even less accountability.

[wco81]

That's right because only yours is a rational, economic argument while everyone else is waging class warfare right?

Because the observation is made that certain tax and fiscal policies have led to higher deficits, higher debt, weaker dollar (which in turn contributes to higher prices of oil and other commodities).

These aren't empirical facts but rather a plot to rip off "productive" people.

Lets just get into deeper debt as a nation, pay more interest to the Chinese, just so the "productive" people can feel more vindicated about being more "productive." After all, I must be one of those "productive" people, collecting thousands a year in dividend and capital gains income. Good thing they had lower taxes for those. Of course, those tax savings might have been or might be offset by higher economic or fiscal costs to be borne by everyone.

[Feanor]

No wonder Ford, Chrysler and Dodge are in such a sh*tty state right now. How can they compete price-wise with Toyota, Honda and Hyundai when they were/are saddled with paying lifetime health benefits for 1 million retired workers, all of whom already are collecting decent pensions and made decent money during their UAW-aided tenure on the lines for the Big Three?

Take care,
PK

My wife told me aout this earlier this week, and I was amazed to hear that a company was paying out so much money for people who don't even work for it anymore. Crazy stuff. The US system of workplace-funded health care is expensive and inefficient enough when it's just for current employees, let alone 90 year olds who haven't worked for a few decades.

[FatPitcher]

It's hard to believe people can still go on about the inefficiency of "big government" with a straight face when big business has proven itself to be just as wasteful, if not more so. And with even less accountability.

What large corporation has debt in the trillions and a balance sheet hundreds of billions in the red? What company doesn't have enough money for its pension plan but refuses to fix it? At which corporation do board members approve billions of dollars in wasteful, unnecessary spending for outspoken shareholders in order to retain their seats?

Last I heard, Enron went bankrupt, but incumbents in Congress are doing just fine.

[FatPitcher]

That's right because only yours is a rational, economic argument while everyone else is waging class warfare right?

Because the observation is made that certain tax and fiscal policies have led to higher deficits, higher debt, weaker dollar (which in turn contributes to higher prices of oil and other commodities).

These aren't empirical facts but rather a plot to rip off "productive" people.

Lets just get into deeper debt as a nation, pay more interest to the Chinese, just so the "productive" people can feel more vindicated about being more "productive." After all, I must be one of those "productive" people, collecting thousands a year in dividend and capital gains income. Good thing they had lower taxes for those. Of course, those tax savings might have been or might be offset by higher economic or fiscal costs to be borne by everyone.

Deficits, debt, and a weaker dollar are a result of irresponsible spending.

Are you aware of capital's role in driving production, or do you really not know? And if you are aware, how could you make such an intellectually dishonest argument?

[JRod]

Deficits, debt, and a weaker dollar are a result of irresponsible spending.

Are you aware of capital's role in driving production, or do you really not know? And if you are aware, how could you make such an intellectually dishonest argument?

You really need to stop posting until you can actually have a something worthwhile to debate. You can oppose people's opinion here like PK, who does it in a respective way.

All you are doing is a mocking one's argument therefore claiming that it's false. You continue not to provide any evidence in support of your claims. In logic, that's called appeal to ridicule.

[wco81]

Deficits, debt, and a weaker dollar are a result of irresponsible spending.

And lower tax revenues. Every time Reagan and Bush cut the marginal rates, the deficit and debt ballooned.

Some coincidence, huh?

Oh and your idea of "irresponsible spending" is probably selective.

Are you aware of capital's role in driving production, or do you really not know? And if you are aware, how could you make such an intellectually dishonest argument?

Yeah how has been capital investment this decade? Economy has really been thriving. Even before the subprime and credit crisis, job growth was subpar compared to just about any other decade in the post WWII period, including periods with higher marginal rates, higher capital gains, higher dividend taxes, including the '90s.

When a hedge fund manager can report hundreds of millions in his personal income tax as 15% capital gains, what is he doing with the 20% in tax savings?

Hint, he's not investing any more of it to new industries. Except maybe the yacht-building and other luxury goods industries. But those industries aren't big enough to impact overall job creation and economic growth.

[Feanor]

It's hard to believe people can still go on about the inefficiency of "big government" with a straight face when big business has proven itself to be just as wasteful, if not more so. And with even less accountability.

What large corporation has debt in the trillions and a balance sheet hundreds of billions in the red? What company doesn't have enough money for its pension plan but refuses to fix it? At which corporation do board members approve billions of dollars in wasteful, unnecessary spending for outspoken shareholders in order to retain their seats?

Last I heard, Enron went bankrupt, but incumbents in Congress are doing just fine.

The scale is lower for obvious reasons, but the wastefulness is just as bad. Board members of failing companies give themselves massive bonuses all the time.

Good thing private companies aren't allowed to print money, even though you'll find some ultra-libertarians who think they should.

[Jared]

Guys,

Discussion and arguments are fine. Stuff prefaced with assuming the opinions and stances of other posters, attributing motivation and positions to other posters that you have absolutely no knowledge of, and calling other posters stupid is not fine. Please have a respectful discussion, or else I'm locking the thread. (And this goes for all sides of the discussion.)

[RobVarak]

Guys,

Stuff prefaced with assuming the opinions and stances of other posters, attributing motivation and positions to other posters that you have absolutely no knowledge of, and calling other posters stupid is not fine.

Damn, that's all I've got!

[Jared]

Guys,

Stuff prefaced with assuming the opinions and stances of other posters, attributing motivation and positions to other posters that you have absolutely no knowledge of, and calling other posters stupid is not fine.

Damn, that's all I've got!

That, and links to the Federalist papers.

[FatPitcher]

Deficits, debt, and a weaker dollar are a result of irresponsible spending.

Are you aware of capital's role in driving production, or do you really not know? And if you are aware, how could you make such an intellectually dishonest argument?

You really need to stop posting until you can actually have a something worthwhile to debate. You can oppose people's opinion here like PK, who does it in a respective way.

All you are doing is a mocking one's argument therefore claiming that it's false. You continue not to provide any evidence in support of your claims. In logic, that's called appeal to ridicule.

You have to have a certain amount of knowledge to participate in a debate. If you don't know basic economic principles such as the factors of production (of which capital is one) or understand the concept of wealth, then what are you doing arguing economics? We could have a "debate" where I post links to high school economics texts, but you are clearly not interested in acquiring the knowledge necessary to form informed opinions. In response to your contention that taxes don't affect productivity, I said that you should read Say. You didn't even read his wikipedia entry.

What is the point of debating someone on a topic they aren't knowledgeable about and don't want to become knowledgeable about? All it tells me is that you are so close-minded and stuck to your preconceived notions that you can't be convinced of anything anyway.

[Jared]

FatP,

First, you don't know if JRod read the Wikipedia entry or not. Please do not assume the stances/thoughts/actions of others that you do not know.

Second, don't claim that other posters "are clearly not interested in acquiring the knowledge necessary to form informed opinions" because they disagree with you. It seems like you disagree with JRod's contentions about the effects of taxes on production. You can quote Say and then say JRod is close-minded. OR you can discuss Say's ideas and argue as to why they don't support JRod's claims. At least then JRod can respond to your actual argument, and not to dismissive postings filled with opinions about the ideas and motivations of the other poster.

(And btw, Say's supply side ideas about taxes and production are not the end all be all for economic theory. See Keynesian economics, why we have a federal reserve, etc. Another important point in the discussion is looking at the curve for taxation and production...for example, is there a linear relationship between the two variables or something else; and if so, what are its ramifications for tax policy.)

[FatPitcher]

FatP,

First, you don't know if JRod read the Wikipedia entry or not. Please do not assume the stances/thoughts/actions of others that you do not know.

It's a reasonable assumption. If he'd read it, he'd know why I was right and he was wrong, but he obviously still doesn't.

Second, don't claim that other posters "are clearly not interested in acquiring the knowledge necessary to form informed opinions" because they disagree with you. It seems like you disagree with JRod's contentions about the effects of taxes on production. You can quote Say and then say JRod is close-minded.

OK, I am stepping into my time machine as we speak to add this quote. By the time you read this, it will have appeared earlier in the thread.

(And btw, Say's supply side ideas about taxes and production are not the end all be all for economic theory. See Keynesian economics, why we have a federal reserve, etc. Another important point in the discussion is looking at the curve for taxation and production...for example, is there a linear relationship between the two variables or something else; and if so, what are its ramifications for tax policy.)

There's no debate on the fact that taxes effect productivity (edit: as a general rule...but it depends on elasticity as well). The only debate is how much and for how long. JRod's wild, evidence-free assumption that companies don't alter production based on demand changes shows that he is just making s*** up as he goes along to support his arguments. Tax Windows at a million dollars a box, demand for Windows at that price falls to zero, and MS decides Windows isn't worth making anymore. Or tax PCs at a million dollars apiece, start-up costs for certain kinds of companies are exorbitantly high, and those companies never exist.

This is like trying to argue about which football team is better when one guy doesn't agree with you on how many points a touchdown is worth. You just tell him, OK, so you don't know much about football, let's talk about something else.

[FatPitcher]

Deficits, debt, and a weaker dollar are a result of irresponsible spending.

And lower tax revenues. Every time Reagan and Bush cut the marginal rates, the deficit and debt ballooned.

Some coincidence, huh?

Oh and your idea of "irresponsible spending" is probably selective.

Are you aware of capital's role in driving production, or do you really not know? And if you are aware, how could you make such an intellectually dishonest argument?

Yeah how has been capital investment this decade? Economy has really been thriving. Even before the subprime and credit crisis, job growth was subpar compared to just about any other decade in the post WWII period, including periods with higher marginal rates, higher capital gains, higher dividend taxes, including the '90s.

When a hedge fund manager can report hundreds of millions in his personal income tax as 15% capital gains, what is he doing with the 20% in tax savings?

Hint, he's not investing any more of it to new industries. Except maybe the yacht-building and other luxury goods industries. But those industries aren't big enough to impact overall job creation and economic growth.

Ah, so when people get to keep more of their money from returns on investments, they actually are motivated to invest LESS!

Everyone agrees that the government spends money irresponsibly. They don't always agree on what constitutes irresponsible spending...and even when they do, Congress spends that money anyway.

When you or I have a change in income, we adjust our spending to compensate. Congress doesn't. When you or I realize we are spending money on things that are no longer worth the cost, we stop. Congress doesn't. When you or I are spending more money than we make, we cut spending. Congress doesn't. When you or I can no longer pay off our obligations, we go bankrupt. Congress just borrows more money.

The government could easily run at a surplus at current tax rates, or even at lower ones, if it was run more sensibly. We would not be spending hundreds of billions on wars, for example. We wouldn't be borrowing from Peter the worker to pay Paul the retiree's social security checks. We wouldn't be spending our tax dollars helping incumbent Congressmen keep their seats by handing out pork.

[JRod]

FP,

The context of the debate was production not in terms of capital but it terms of individual productivity and work rate. This was the debate a few pages back. We were specifically talking about individual income tax, not corporate income tax. There we also a lengthy discussion on how individuals are less productive because of taxes. Again, my challenge is that personal income tax of say a Microsoft worker have very little effect how productive that worker is or how productive MS is.

I posted that capital is inherent to production. The following quote was in response to PK.

If you were to say that higher taxes limits how much capital certain companies or individuals have to invest which in turn could spur on capital development, then you would have a much stronger argument.

Again, the context of the debate was that taxes hamper individual's right to be productive. I followed up that post by saying that since that passage of income tax , I don't believe that personal income tax has hurt our economy as much as some no-tax advocates have said.

You have clearly misread and made assumptions I've never made. I clearly said several posts back that the lack of capital does influence production. And that income tax for a company does affect capital.

You are also bring up facts and theories not central to me claim. I have made no such assumptions on supply and demand. I have also not brought into question how heavy taxes on the supply side result in less demand.

[Jackdog]

Thanks Congress!!!! Our tax dollars are now going to pay private bills. 300 Billion worth. Housing bailouts for defaulting borrowers. It just keeps getting better. What's next? Bailouts on credit cards? School loans? The sky's the f***in limit.

American Goverments new philosophy. If you work for it and do it right,your a f***in idiot. If you buy s*** that you know you can't afford and then take out loans on it to buy more s*** you can't afford. Don't worry,our taxes will bail you out.

Thanks to Bush as well. He flip flopped on his veto promise of the moronic bill. I can't wait to see this idiot go. No pardon for Ramos and Compean for doing their job,but he'll sign a bailout for people that don't.

[wco81]

Deficits, debt, and a weaker dollar are a result of irresponsible spending.

And lower tax revenues. Every time Reagan and Bush cut the marginal rates, the deficit and debt ballooned.

Some coincidence, huh?

Oh and your idea of "irresponsible spending" is probably selective.

Are you aware of capital's role in driving production, or do you really not know? And if you are aware, how could you make such an intellectually dishonest argument?

Yeah how has been capital investment this decade? Economy has really been thriving. Even before the subprime and credit crisis, job growth was subpar compared to just about any other decade in the post WWII period, including periods with higher marginal rates, higher capital gains, higher dividend taxes, including the '90s.

When a hedge fund manager can report hundreds of millions in his personal income tax as 15% capital gains, what is he doing with the 20% in tax savings?

Hint, he's not investing any more of it to new industries. Except maybe the yacht-building and other luxury goods industries. But those industries aren't big enough to impact overall job creation and economic growth.

Ah, so when people get to keep more of their money from returns on investments, they actually are motivated to invest LESS!

Everyone agrees that the government spends money irresponsibly. They don't always agree on what constitutes irresponsible spending...and even when they do, Congress spends that money anyway.

When you or I have a change in income, we adjust our spending to compensate. Congress doesn't. When you or I realize we are spending money on things that are no longer worth the cost, we stop. Congress doesn't. When you or I are spending more money than we make, we cut spending. Congress doesn't. When you or I can no longer pay off our obligations, we go bankrupt. Congress just borrows more money.

The government could easily run at a surplus at current tax rates, or even at lower ones, if it was run more sensibly. We would not be spending hundreds of billions on wars, for example. We wouldn't be borrowing from Peter the worker to pay Paul the retiree's social security checks. We wouldn't be spending our tax dollars helping incumbent Congressmen keep their seats by handing out pork.

You would think, but right now, with lower tax rates, there's a lot of money sitting on the sidelines, which is why the stock market isn't faring too well.

Yes it's true, the govt. (not just Congress) borrows money. The president proposes budgets and hammers it out with Congress. Oh and incidentally, the administration just announced today that the fiscal 2009 budget will be about $490 billion in deficit. Not sure if that includes supplemental funding requests for the wars.

As for individuals acting more responsibly than Congress, not really. Our savings rate has been negative for a few years, long before the real estate and credit problems. But our economy is heavily dependent on consumer spending

As for social security, that's a whole other discussion. Neither candidate is talking about addressing the deficits or long-term problems like Medicare (well not directly).