On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:46:31 -0700, Shrikeback wrote:
> On Sep 15, 3:19Â pm, Michael Coburn
verizon.net> wrote:>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:15:42 -0700, Shrikeback wrote:
>>> On Sep 13, 1:30Â pm, Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>>>> The corp. media don't want the public discussion on economic issues
>>>> but who cares about them?
>>
>>> Yeah, you'll never hear them talk about the Jimmy Carter double-digit
>>> everything high-tax economic staglfation boom, the threatened
>>> ressurection of which is the only vital economic issue this election.
>>> So spread the word: the peanut gallery won't do it for you.
>>
>> The so called "Carter" problem was inherited from a long line of tax
>> cutting and spending politicos starting with the patron saint Kennedy
>> who cut taxes on the rich from 9x%% to 70%%.
>
> So at least we see what you favor, eh? Anyway, those excessive tax rates
> were 1.) a way of slowing down inflation during the war and after-war
> period, and 2.) offset by writeoffs, which allowed the rich to pay
> considerably less if they invested in directions the gummint desired. A
> holdover from FDR and WW2: force investment towards the war effort, just
> like everything else.
I do not disagree with any of what you say here. I wonder why you think
you are being argumentative?
>> That was the beginning of the
>> inflation problem. Â The dual "wars" of Johnson (Vietnam and the War on
>> Poverty) and no increase in taxation exacerbated the problem of
>> inflation, but Johnson _KNEW_ he was causing inflation and often spoke
>> of it as helping the farmers (which it did). Â At that time the tax code
>> was not indexed and so the government also benefitted from the
>> inflation.
>
> The gummint benefits from inflation on a number of levels. Debtors
> always benefit from inflation, for one thing. It devalues their debt.
> Inflation also causes a rise in revenue, usually, since it must be
> driven by overheated exchange.
There is not a "must" in it. Inflation is not really a result of
"overheated exchange". It is a monetary condition at all times. Price
increased that occur due to supply and demand are not "inflation".
> But note that in the above, the poster has nothing bad to say about
> unindexed tax rates, which were the real undoing of the old high-tax
> ways. When inflation pushes the middle class up into the 70%% bracket,
> tax revolt becomes populist. How could it be any other way?
That would be true if the inflation actually did "push people into the
70%% bracket" which it most certainly did not. However, people did find
themselves in higher brackets because of their wage increases. They
complained about it because no one likes to pay taxes. But they were
better off with the higher wages and the higher taxes than they would
have otherwise been.
>> In
>> this case the tax cuts actually did increase the revenue although at
>> the expense of the productive sector.
>
> At the expense of the productive sector? What the hell is your idea of
> the productive sector? Gummint employees? No.
You seem to be confusing yourself. I am addressing the Kennedy Tax Cuts
and the Johnson spending in an un-indexed system. The "productive
sector" is certainly not the government. I was saying that the PRODUCERS
were paying higher taxes because of the inflated wages. The tax was an
"expense" to them. I have also said that the gain was more then the
expanse. In most cases it was far more.
> The reason these tax
> cuts increased revenue was because more people were making money,
> meaning the lower rate was made up for in (say it with me) volume.
Yes. The Kennedy cuts were more focused. They were not just total
abandonment of the previous system. So, yes, we saw more investment in
the USA in real capital and in real businesses and we saw more employment
and more jobs and increasing wages. And as wages increased prices did
also.
> Somehow, more people making money means the productive sector suffered.
> How's that again? This is what I mean about the decline of leftardism.
> The answer is in front of them, yet they choose to filter it through
> ideological prisms. It must be an essential part of leftard faith that
> more people making money is a _Bad Thing_, perhaps even an _EVIIIIIL
> Thing_
You are an idiot.
>> Then along comes Nixon and instead of putting the tax code back to the
>> way it was, he does wage and price controls, and removes the gold
>> standard due to its "inconvenience".
>
> Give me a break! The Gold Standard! Fiat currency is the way of the
> New Deal. The Gold Standard causes deflation, and, in fact, there isn't
> enough Gold around to cover the size of the world economy.
The reserve requirement was to be adjusted as opposed to adjusting the
interest rates. That is NOT what happened. But I am not a gold bug. If
I were to tie money to some post in the ground it would probably be the
monetary price of the average acre of land in the sovereignty.
> As Nixon
> said, we're all Keynesians now. And really nobody advocates going on
> the gold standard except a few Old Right extremists. You are kind of
> like Ayn Rand with higher-taxes.
You are an idiot.
>> And
>> Nixon decides to declare victory and leave Vietnam dumping a lot of
>> military people into the job market and we have stagflation.
>
> So now immigrants are to blame?
WoW!! You really pull it out your ass, don't you?
>> Carter was the inheritor of all this malfeasance.
>
> Yes, of course. It is always somebody else's fault, eh? Having a bit of
> your yellowcake and eating it too?
The facts are as I have presented them. Reality seems to have a Liberal
bias.
>> He did not create it.
>> He, like any other politician other than Clinton, decided to dump the
>> problem on the Fed and thus hired Paul Volcker as the hatchet man.
>
> LOL. The problem was solved by the Fed for lo, those two decades and
> then some.
So you would be giving credit to Carter for stopping the inflation?
> And, now, in spite of oil going higher (even corrected for
> inflation) than it was during those dark days of the late seventies,
> the economy is _still_ not as bad as it was then.
LIE!! BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lie alert, lie alert. Or a stupidity alert.
> In spite of much more
> immigration, the economy is _still_ not as bad as it was then. In spite
> of cheap labor markets expanding like melanoma, the economy is doing
> much better than it was then.
If you make up the metrics you need to show performance then you cannot
fail to show performance. But not even that is going to save you now.
The Republican credit card is maxed out. No more fuel. The oil MAY go as
low as $80. That is all. There is no more cheap undiscovered oil like
there was in the early 80's.
>> Ronald Ray Gun was the beneficiary of this action. Â Carter was tossed
>> and Reagan had the Volcker (the Carter appointee) to use as the bad
>> guy. Reagan ab-used the Fed and Carter to create the biggest handout to
>> the rich in history with his tax cut for the rich from 70%% to 28%%.
>
> Note that he calls this, 1.) a handout, and 2.) to the rich. One of the
> problems Reagan solved was the unindexed progressive rates, which really
> did doom the old order anyway. Face it, the middle class doesn't
> want to pay 70%% in taxes, and there is no need for it.
But there is every reason for you to lie about it all, isn't there?
> Also, the more
> rich we have, the higher revenues will go. Only Allah knows why the
> leftards want fewer rich, unless it's to save the polar bears, or to
> keep
> the demographic that consists of people who don't need much financial
> help from the gummint under control.
Lie. lie. lie. That's all you have. The bulk of the population is not as
"prosperous" as they should be and could be if it were not for Republican
fascism.
>> And as
>> the Fed was able to declare victory over the inflation monster and
>> eased monetary policies, the economy grew. Â Ray Gun and the voodoo econ
>> supply side trickle downers were able to prance and preen and declare
>> that "See, deficits don't matter".
>
> Actually, deficits are for the purpose of fighting deflation and
> recession; that is the Keynesian way, in any case. So is monetary
> policy. God knows what it is you want. Evidently deflation and
> depression if you really want to go on the gold standard.
It is not the least bit necessary to have deficit spending in order to
"fight deflation". Keynes was a gold bug whether he realized it or not.
And you are to damned stupid to grasp what "I want".
>> And now at the end of 30 years of lying stupidity and greed, the
>> reality is coming home to roost. Â We now pay almost $400B in interest
>> on the debt of the republican borrow and military war rightarded
>> fascists. Â That debt is 80%% military spending debt. Â It is the price of
>> Republican fascism.
>
> That's absurd. Since military spending never goes over 1/4 of the
> Federal budget,
LIE alert!!!! The SS system is __**NOT**__ part of the federal budget
and it is off budget because it is a paid as it goes value for value
transactions system outside the normal government tax and budget system.
But we should just have a special Poll Tax for Republicans since it is
them who created all the debt.
> it can't account for 80%% of the debt, except by some
> fundamentalist leftard creation- mathematics.
It accounts for 80%% of the debt because Reagan cut taxes while increasing
military spending and Bush has also done the same but much much more of
it.
> Notice that after FDR,
> the federal debt was 150%% of the GDP. Now, it is more like 70%%.
Irrelevant ancient history associated with a REAL war.
> The EU realizes the need to use fiscal policy to fight recession, but
> they have guidelines that no state should run more than 3.5%% of its GDP
> in deficit spending. What percentage of the GDP is the federal deficit
> currently? The following space is left for you to tell us (and show your
> work, please)--->
I see no reason to do your work for you. It is your dead skunk. You can
bury it.
> Anyway, all of this is just a mix of anti-Keynesianism combined with a
> desire for high taxes, even if it lowers revenues. It's odd that
> leftards come out of the woodwork to fly anti-Keynesian flags.
I am not a Keynesian nor a Friedmanite, and certainly not an Austrian. I
am, I suppose, a Georgist/geoist on steroids. That is a reformed
classical.
Only idiots talk about taxes as though they were a single mechanism that
could be applied or released like the brake in a car.
