QuoteObama's budget proposal will take aim at the wealthy
By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin January 17 at 11:16 PM
President Obama plans to propose raising $320 billion over the next 10 years in new taxes targeting wealthy individuals and big financial institutions to pay for new programs designed to help lower- and middle-income families, senior administration officials said Saturday.
In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Obama will propose raising the capital gains and dividend tax rates to 28 percent for high earners; imposing a fee on the liabilities of about 100 big financial institutions; and greatly broadening the amount of inherited money subject to taxes.
Obama will also seek to boost private retirement savings by requiring employers without 401(k) plans to make it easier for full-time and part-time workers to save in individual retirement accounts, which could assist as many as 30 million people. The administration would provide small employers tax credits to cover costs.
Senior administration officials said that the package would highlight the president's desire to boost taxes on the nation's wealthy households and help lower- and middle-class families. New tax credits would help those in need of child care and households with two earners, they said, while other proposals — such as covering community college tuition — would help students.
The moves would "eliminate the biggest tax loopholes and use the savings to let the middle class get ahead," said one of the senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity during a conference call with reporters to describe the plan before the president's speech. This person also said that 99 percent of the impact of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent of earners.
The ambitious — and controversial — proposals demonstrate the White House's increasing confidence about the trajectory of the U.S. economy. For the past year and a half, it has debated how much it could trumpet the recovery when so many Americans have not felt any change in their own economic outlook.
But the plan drew immediate fire from Republican — and could face criticism from some Democrats — who have in the past increased the amount of money exempt from inheritance taxes they branded "death taxes." Most Republicans have long opposed increases in capital gains rates, and many favor eliminating the tax altogether.
"This is not a serious proposal," wrote Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in an e-mail late Saturday. "We lift families up and grow the economy with a simpler, flatter tax code, not big tax increases to pay for more Washington spending."
"Slapping American small businesses, savers, and investors with more tax hikes only negates the benefits of the tax policies that have been successful in helping to expand the economy, promote savings, and create jobs," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a statement Saturday night.
"The president needs to stop listening to his liberal allies who want to raise taxes at all costs and start working with Congress to fix our broken tax code."
The administration tried to head off some of that attack by asserting that elements of the package resembled proposals endorsed by Republicans. Officials also said that the capital gains tax rate was 28 percent during President Ronald Reagan's terms in office. The Obama administration would also seek to limit the impact of the tax increases by saying the higher capital gains and dividend rates would apply only to couples earning more than $500,000 a year.
Officials said that the relatively low capital gains tax rate with a top rate of 20 percent has enabled the 400 highest-earning taxpayers — with $139 million or more of income — to pay an average rate of 17 percent when the top income tax rate is 35 percent.
The proposal to impose a 7 basis point fee on financial institutions with assets of more than $50 billion will also run smack into opposition from big banks and insurance companies. The administration compared the fee with a proposal by former House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) for an excise tax on large financial institutions. And last week, the House Budget Committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), proposed a 0.1 percent surcharge on financial market transactions.
One of the senior administration officials Saturday said that the goal of the proposed fee from the White House was to discourage big financial institutions from excessive borrowing. He said that despite banking revisions after the 2008-2009 financial crisis, highly leveraged financial institutions "still pose risks to the broader economy," adding that "this fee is designed to make that activity more costly."
The economic recovery has freed the president to push for more ambitious domestic policies, many designed to help those in the poor and middle class who are still lagging behind. In the past week alone, Obama has announced new proposals on paid sick leave, free community college tuition and expanded broadband access. And while he might have trouble pushing those through the GOP-controlled Congress, Obama could still end up defining key issues for the elections in 2016.
"The battle for the next American agenda is already on," said Donald A. Baer, chief executive of Burson-Marsteller and formerly chief speechwriter for President Bill Clinton. "There's this effort to define a new growth and share agenda — growth but not only growth alone, and sharing the growth but not just sharing the wealth." He said Obama's college and broadband access are examples of proposals that could add to growth and give poor and middle-class people the tools to increase their share in it.
But Obama has to balance his rhetoric — between optimism and caution — by talking up the strong recovery while acknowledging that wage growth remains weak.
"There's always been a tension between things are in fact getting better and people are not feeling great," said Wade Randlett, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and major Democratic donor. "One is economic fact, and the other is polling, which always catches up over time."
Now the president is so comfortable with the idea of talking up the economic recovery that his advisers have branded it — "America's resurgence" — and made it a regular talking point in Obama's stump speeches and weekly radio addresses. And it is likely to be a centerpiece of the State of the Union address.
In bragging about performance, Obama administration officials point to factors including the best streak of job growth since the 1990s, a recovery in the housing market and healthier balance sheets for households, companies and the federal government. And they have contrasted that performance with the anemic economies of Europe and Japan as evidence that the United States has regained its global economic dominance in what Obama has called a "breakthrough year for America."
But wages have been a stubborn reminder of the recovery's shortcomings. In November, average hourly private-sector nominal wages inched up 6 cents, but in December, they fell 5 cents. After adjusting for inflation, wages for the entire year crawled up 0.7 percent, a modest amount in an economic recovery. It is a point that has been featured prominently in comments by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has emerged as a leader of the Democratic Party's liberal wing.
"I'm feeling better about the economy, but I don't think we have in place a set of policies that will assure that this recovery will be either sustained or fully inclusive," said Lawrence H. Summers, a former top adviser to Obama, former Treasury secretary and now a professor at Harvard University. "That's why I think more needs to be done."
The White House typically aims its messages directly at the middle class, but, partly in response to Warren, Obama administration officials are more comfortable talking about how some of its proposals benefit poorer Americans.
"We're on offense on minimum wage and the environment," Randlett said. "That's the kind you only do when you have the leash of good economics."
Why is this a positive?
Don't worry, our boys in Congress will save us, g. :hug:
LOL, "us".
I'm going Galt.
I hope French landowners get additionally fucked over.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2015, 09:59:52 PM
I hope French landowners get additionally fucked over.
They let the 75% tax lapse.
But thanks for the love dawg.
Eat me. People who feel compelled to go all the way to France to buy vacation homes can lovingly trim my pubes into the shape of an American flag.
Wrong thread for pube talk.
There is no possible answer that would satisfy you.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 10:13:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 09:56:19 PM
Why is this a positive?
So no answer?
As you obvious don't consider it as such, and appear to already have escalated to DefCon Cunt, then answering you would simply be a waste of time, now wouldn't it?
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2015, 10:16:36 PM
There is no possible answer that would satisfy you.
True. I can't think of answer to why anyone should be excited about our President saying (in the words of the Seedster) fuck you to wealthy people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2015, 10:20:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 10:13:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 09:56:19 PM
Why is this a positive?
So no answer?
As you obvious don't consider it as such, and appear to already have escalated to DefCon Cunt, then answering you would simply be a waste of time, now wouldn't it?
Kind of like this thread, no?
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 10:21:21 PM
Kind of like this thread, no?
You're more than welcome to discuss your pube shaving habits if you like instead.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 10:21:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2015, 10:16:36 PM
There is no possible answer that would satisfy you.
True. I can't think of answer to why anyone should be excited about our President saying (in the words of the Seedster) fuck you to wealthy people.
I would be excited if that were the case. But alas he just wants to tax their capital gains not string them by their hairy cocks. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2015, 10:22:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 10:21:21 PM
Kind of like this thread, no?
You're more than welcome to discuss your pube shaving habits if you like instead.
No, I think I'll go out soon to party and await better Languish threads.
Quote from: Josephus on January 18, 2015, 10:25:41 PM
I would be excited if that were the case. But alas he just wants to tax their capital gains not string them by their hairy cocks. :(
Yeah, no wins unless you are tearing somebody down, huh? :console:
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 10:21:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2015, 10:16:36 PM
There is no possible answer that would satisfy you.
True. I can't think of answer to why anyone should be excited about our President saying (in the words of the Seedster) fuck you to wealthy people.
Since saying "fuck you to wealthy people" is defined as raising taxes on the ultra-rich, I am glad we can agree that there is no answer that would satisfy someone as ideologically inflexible as you are when they ask "Why is it a good idea to raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy?"
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2015, 10:31:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 10:21:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2015, 10:16:36 PM
There is no possible answer that would satisfy you.
True. I can't think of answer to why anyone should be excited about our President saying (in the words of the Seedster) fuck you to wealthy people.
Since saying "fuck you to wealthy people" is defined as raising taxes on the ultra-rich, I am glad we can agree that there is no answer that would satisfy someone as ideologically inflexible as you are when they ask "Why is it a good idea to raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy?"
No, I think it can be okay to raise taxes on people of any background - including the "ultra"-wealthy. Not sure why taxes raises are automatically a great thing though.
In fact, one could ask (thought not someone as ideologically inflexible as myself) why it is that someone would think raising taxes is a "fuck you."
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 10:35:07 PM
why it is that someone would think raising taxes is a "fuck you."
Because they have gotten away with playing their little tax games long enough. So yeah, it's a "fuck you". So they're just going to have to play by a few more rules now, like the rest of us are required to.
What does it matter? Won't the Republicans just pass massive tax cuts in an effort to defund the government?
Quote from: Josephus on January 18, 2015, 10:25:41 PM
I would be excited if that were the case. But alas he just wants to tax their capital gains not string them by their hairy cocks. :(
Why would you be happy if the president said fuck you to wealthy people?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2015, 10:44:45 PM
Quote from: Josephus on January 18, 2015, 10:25:41 PM
I would be excited if that were the case. But alas he just wants to tax their capital gains not string them by their hairy cocks. :(
Why would you be happy if the president said fuck you to wealthy people?
God, Yi, you are so ideologically inflexible.
Obama can propose all he wants, but he needs Congress to implement it, no? And Congress needs him to sign whatever they pass, right?
So this is staking out a starting position for bargaining, much further away from the Republican one back when he tried being the "responsible adult" and they shut down the government.
Or did I miss something?
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 10:35:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2015, 10:31:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 10:21:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2015, 10:16:36 PM
There is no possible answer that would satisfy you.
True. I can't think of answer to why anyone should be excited about our President saying (in the words of the Seedster) fuck you to wealthy people.
Since saying "fuck you to wealthy people" is defined as raising taxes on the ultra-rich, I am glad we can agree that there is no answer that would satisfy someone as ideologically inflexible as you are when they ask "Why is it a good idea to raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy?"
No, I think it can be okay to raise taxes on people of any background - including the "ultra"-wealthy.
Then your question makes no sense.
Quote
Not sure why taxes raises are automatically a great thing though.
Not sure why you would think anyone claimed they were automatically a great thing - but that isn't what you said. You made it clear that raising them are automatically a bad thing.
Quote
In fact, one could ask (thought not someone as ideologically inflexible as myself) why it is that someone would think raising taxes is a "fuck you."
If one were to ask that, then their question makes even less sense.
Quote from: Jacob on January 18, 2015, 10:49:20 PM
Obama can propose all he wants, but he needs Congress to implement it, no? And Congress needs him to sign whatever they pass, right?
So this is staking out a starting position for bargaining, much further away from the Republican one back when he tried being the "responsible adult" and they shut down the government.
Or did I miss something?
I think it's more accurate to characterize it as running it up the flagpole to see who salutes and/or red meat for the partisan base as opposed to an opening bargaining position. He does this all the time--tosses out an idea in the context of nothing.
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2015, 10:51:57 PM
Not sure why you would think anyone claimed they were automatically a great thing - but that isn't what you said. You made it clear that raising them are automatically a bad thing.
I recall asking why it was a positive. I suppose I could have assumed Seedy meant it as a negative but that would have been dishonest, no?
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2015, 10:51:57 PM
If one were to ask that, then their question makes even less sense.
:hmm:
Fuck, there went TV that night. MAH NCIS
Quote from: Jacob on January 18, 2015, 10:49:20 PM
Obama can propose all he wants, but he needs Congress to implement it, no? And Congress needs him to sign whatever they pass, right?
So this is staking out a starting position for bargaining, much further away from the Republican one back when he tried being the "responsible adult" and they shut down the government.
Or did I miss something?
There will be no bargain. You can't bargain with people who won't even recognized that the man is the legal president or believe that taxes on the richest Americans is a form of racism.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2015, 11:06:49 PM
There will be no bargain. You can't bargain with people who won't even recognized that the man is the legal president or believe that taxes on the richest Americans is a form of racism.
So what happens come budget time?
A budget doesn't get passed.
That will be awkward.
If a budget does get passed and signed, at some point, that will likely be the result of negotiation I expect.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 10:53:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2015, 10:51:57 PM
Not sure why you would think anyone claimed they were automatically a great thing - but that isn't what you said. You made it clear that raising them are automatically a bad thing.
I recall asking why it was a positive.
Actually, you agreed that there was no possible answer to the question that would satisfy you, which certainly suggests that you consider it automatically a negative, since there is no way it can be positive.
Damn dawg, you goin through languish withdrawals. Like a water jet cutter. :P
Quote from: Jacob on January 18, 2015, 11:11:03 PM
That will be awkward.
If a budget does get passed and signed, at some point, that will likely be the result of negotiation I expect.
It's not as big a problem was you might think.
28% tax rate? That's monstrous. I pay a 19% flat rate on all my income (and my effective tax rate is even lower because of being able to deduct most electronics I buy and car costs as professionally-related).
Coming to think about it, my cleaning lady probably pays higher effective tax rate than I do. :hmm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEUB29yU-pA
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2015, 10:39:57 PMSo they're just going to have to play by a few more rules now, like the rest of us are required to.
No, they'll never play by the same rules as "the little people".
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 01:48:42 AM
28% tax rate? That's monstrous. I pay a 19% flat rate on all my income (and my effective tax rate is even lower because of being able to deduct most electronics I buy and car costs as professionally-related).
Coming to think about it, my cleaning lady probably pays higher effective tax rate than I do. :hmm:
I thought the 28% only applies to capital gains and dividends but not income? :unsure:
I think the top rate on earned income is something like 39%.
I pay flat 19%. :yeah:
Yeah but you live in Poland. :nelson:
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2015, 04:06:45 AM
Yeah but you live in Poland. :nelson:
You live in Alaska. :nelson:
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 04:04:04 AM
I pay flat 19%. :yeah:
Max in Hong Kong is 15%, and most people pay less than that :contract:
Yes, but I would not want to live in Hong Kong. :secret:
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 04:13:18 AM
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2015, 04:06:45 AM
Yeah but you live in Poland. :nelson:
You live in Alaska. :nelson:
Yeah, he does, but that's better than Poland because it's been longer since it was ruled by Russians.
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2015, 04:13:18 AM
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2015, 04:06:45 AM
Yeah but you live in Poland. :nelson:
You live in Alaska. :nelson:
You're Polish enough to actually think that's an insult.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 09:56:19 PM
Why is this a positive?
cuts in capital gains taxes didn't seem to have any positive effects on investments. Lower taxes on dividends encourage investors to seek revenu titles rather than growth titles, so it's bad for the economy in the long term if we only protect mega-corporations that seeks stability rather than innovation.
The last Bush tax cuts aimed at the very wealthy, like the inheritance tax had no positive effects on the economy. The economy still slumbered, simply because making a very rich person even richer doesn't stimulate spending and growth. Figure it this way: you already have enough money to buy whatever you want in life, suddenly you get even more, and what's better is you inheritors won't have much work to do to preserve their life-styles since they will inherit nearly 100% of your wealth through varous & careful financial planning on your part.
So by cutting taxes on the ultra-rich, you are essentially not encouraging spending, you are promoting lazyness and you don't help your economy. But that's usually the Republican's economic plan, wich is why the economy often sucks during a Republican President's term and gains a boost during a Democratic President's term (Reagan only surfed on Carter's policies after all and it took Clinton's policies to turn the tide and end the recession, then Bush 2nd came he fucked it all and Obama just never could deliver on his promises because he was a weak President vis-à-vis his Congress, always seeking consensus rather than going forward).
So long as you remember that tax rates & govt fiscal income aren't a straight line up, there's no problem in re-adjusting (a little) the tax rates of the very wealthy. It's not like the US has a shortage of ultra-rich people either, unlike some other areas. Even if 4-5 of them would create their own small island (or floating platform) paradise, you'd still have tons of hard working entrepreneurs contributing their fair share to the burdens of the country. It's not like you'd see a massive exodus toward Canada or Mexico of these people, anyway.
Meanwhile:
QuoteThe wealthiest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population combined, Oxfam, a charity dedicated to fighting global poverty, said today. In fact, wealth is already so unevenly distributed, that you need just $3,650 to count yourself among the richest half of the world's population. A mere $77,000 brings you among the wealthiest 10%. And just $798,000 puts you into the ranks of the 1%—within the reach of many white-collar urban professionals in the West
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.static-economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Foriginal-size%2Fimages%2F2014%2F10%2Fblogs%2Fgraphic-detail%2F20141018_gdc951.png&hash=82ddc29adea4b3b4dca84674f5c85dd1d25257dd)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/10/daily-chart-8?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/purseoftheonepercent
That's only because of India's strict cast system.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2015, 09:56:19 PM
Why is this a positive?
Because extreme income inequality and dropping rates of social mobility are not worthy goals of taxation policy (or any policy).
Poor people is the problem. Not rich people.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2015, 12:17:19 PM
Poor people is the problem. Not rich people.
Neither rich nor poor people are the problem. Tax policies which allow Warren Buffet to pay less tax than his secretary are.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2015, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 18, 2015, 10:49:20 PM
Obama can propose all he wants, but he needs Congress to implement it, no? And Congress needs him to sign whatever they pass, right?
So this is staking out a starting position for bargaining, much further away from the Republican one back when he tried being the "responsible adult" and they shut down the government.
Or did I miss something?
I think it's more accurate to characterize it as running it up the flagpole to see who salutes and/or red meat for the partisan base as opposed to an opening bargaining position. He does this all the time--tosses out an idea in the context of nothing.
Agreed pretty much, this is more likely the starting point of a proposal. But didn't he proposed this when he had a democratic Congress and it didn't pass then either? So I don't expect it to pass now.
This will be front and center in tonight's SotU. Increase in cap gains for fat cats and transaction tax for 100 largest financial institutions. Proceeds to finance free juco tuition for hard working middle class students who can maintain a C+ average (:bleeding:). Also to fund unspecified tax credits and tax breaks for the hard working American middle class.
Tag line: "middle class economics vs. trickle down economics."
I'm guessing you're not a fan.
I'm not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 06:53:17 PM
I'm not.
Yeah, I figured.
Well, I suppose you can comfort in knowing the proposals are highly unlikely to come to pass.
And I figured you're in favor, so I guess that makes us even.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 06:59:33 PM
And I figured you're in favor, so I guess that makes us even.
Great pair of analytical minds, us.
Like watching 2 math nerds trying to pick up chicks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2015, 08:47:50 PM
Like watching 2 math nerds trying to pick up chicks.
I figure it's all about the leverage...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2015, 10:10:36 PM
Eat me. People who feel compelled to go all the way to France to buy vacation homes can lovingly trim my pubes into the shape of an American flag.
Huh. Never figured Seedy for a Hamptons guy.
Seedy goes to the Jersey Shore.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2015, 11:43:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2015, 10:10:36 PM
Eat me. People who feel compelled to go all the way to France to buy vacation homes can lovingly trim my pubes into the shape of an American flag.
Huh. Never figured Seedy for a Hamptons guy.
Whatever few scraps of taxes the 1% can't hide.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 21, 2015, 11:44:12 AM
Seedy goes to the Jersey Shore.
I'm in Maryland; the Jersey Shore has come to us.
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2015, 11:08:08 PM
I figure it's all about the leverage...
Please god, don't let this turn into a thread about the seduction community. :bleeding:
:P
I used to bitch about Dems because I knew that no matter how much more taxes were increased, and more wealth transfer was done, there would never come a point where they would say "Oh yeah, this is the right spot - this is how much we should spend on social services, and no more..."
Now I feel exactly the opposite - the Republicans have made it clear that there is no amount of wealth transfer to the already wealthy that is too much. No matter how much the system skews more and more towards the rich, the answer is never going to be "Hey, that seems a little out of line...should we do something about that?"
Right now the wealthy continue to become more wealthy, and at the expense of not just the poor but of the middle class and even the well off. This has been going on for some time, continues, even accelerates, and yet the answer from the right is always "Don't do anything, and even roll back things that have been done in the past - even tax rates that Reagan supported are too much!"
It is kind of mind boggling, really.
Maybe you shouldn't be so partisan, Berkut.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:30:08 PM
It is kind of mind boggling, really.
What boggles my mind is how little you know of economics.
Do you want to know what happens when you rise taxes?
Look at France with the 75% tax for the rich, i forget whether capital gain or what exactly it was, which they expected would collect billions, but instead the rich fled the country and the punitive tax only collected a few millions.
Rise taxes to the rich and the professional class pays the price. Taxes are always pushed down to the consumer.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:30:08 PM
It is kind of mind boggling, really.
Not sure why you would be surprised. Republican ideology is all about getting government out of the lives of people to allow them to make their own way. That ideological view necessarily rejects the kind of balancing you are talking about which is firmly within what Americans call liberal ideology.
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 02:34:57 PM
What boggles my mind is how little you know of economics.
What boggles my mind is how much faith you put in Republican pundits who claim to know economics.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:30:08 PM
I used to bitch about Dems because I knew that no matter how much more taxes were increased, and more wealth transfer was done, there would never come a point where they would say "Oh yeah, this is the right spot - this is how much we should spend on social services, and no more..."
Now I feel exactly the opposite - the Republicans have made it clear that there is no amount of wealth transfer to the already wealthy that is too much. No matter how much the system skews more and more towards the rich, the answer is never going to be "Hey, that seems a little out of line...should we do something about that?"
I think both are true. The Democratic base will never be happy with the with the amount of money the government redistributes, and the Republican base will never be happy as long as the government is doing any redistribution and preventing the wealthy from consolidating economic power. Unfortunately, due to the screwed-up structure of our two-party state these relatively small groups get to dominate what actually happens at the state and national levels.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2015, 02:39:36 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 02:34:57 PM
What boggles my mind is how little you know of economics.
What boggles my mind is how much faith you put in Republican pundits who claim to know economics.
I don't. I follow the Wealth of Nations by that little scottish dude.
Ok, point out where Adam Smith declared that taxes destroy the economy.
Page 69, right at the center.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 02:35:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:30:08 PM
It is kind of mind boggling, really.
Not sure why you would be surprised. Republican ideology is all about getting government out of the lives of people to allow them to make their own way. That ideological view necessarily rejects the kind of balancing you are talking about which is firmly within what Americans call liberal ideology.
What is the most surprising is that it all took less than 40 years. Even the most ardent Reaganauts thought it would take a couple more generations.
I don't want to do anything, and even roll back things that have been done in the past. Even tax rates that Reagan supported are too much.
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 02:43:59 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2015, 02:39:36 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 02:34:57 PM
What boggles my mind is how little you know of economics.
What boggles my mind is how much faith you put in Republican pundits who claim to know economics.
I don't. I follow the Wealth of Nations by that little scottish dude.
You better read it first then. You will be surprised what he actually said.
After the singularity gets here, I am going to simulate an entire world on which I shall force free market economy, and it will develop way faster than our world did. By 1800 they are going to be deep into the Information Revolution, thus finally proving to the knuckleheads here in Languish that free market economy is superior.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 21, 2015, 03:12:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 02:35:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:30:08 PM
It is kind of mind boggling, really.
Not sure why you would be surprised. Republican ideology is all about getting government out of the lives of people to allow them to make their own way. That ideological view necessarily rejects the kind of balancing you are talking about which is firmly within what Americans call liberal ideology.
What is the most surprising is that it all took less than 40 years. Even the most ardent Reaganauts thought it would take a couple more generations.
I think Reagan needs to be understood in the context of his time, just as Thatcher and, to a lesser degree Mulroney in Canada. They were all products of the backlash against over regulation in the 70s. While they all spoke in the language of the ideology of smaller government I think they all kept a place for government. The elimination of an appropriate place for government is what I think has changed.
In Canada, by contrast, everyone (or a least the vast majority of us) will readily agree that government has an imporant role. We disagree amongst ourselves about the kinds of balancing judgments Berkut is talking about. You will get to see it first hand when Josephus and I start talking about the Federal election that is going to get started in the next couple of months. :D But you will never see Jospehus and I disagree that there is a fundamental need for government to play a role.
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 03:20:45 PM
After the singularity gets here, I am going to simulate an entire world on which I shall force free market economy, and it will develop way faster than our world did. By 1800 they are going to be deep into the Information Revolution, thus finally proving to the knuckleheads here in Languish that free market economy is superior.
No bread and circuses? Better stay out of the Forum or the mob will crucify you.
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 02:50:03 PM
Page 69, right at the center.
Quoteputes the necessary expense of a labourer's family, consisting of six
persons, the father and mother, two children able to do something,
and two not able, at ten shillings a-week, or twenty-six
pounds a-year. If they cannot earn this by their labour, they must
make it up, he supposes, either by begging or stealing. He appears
to have enquired very carefully into this subject {See his scheme
for the maintenance of the poor, in Burn's History of the Poor
Laws.}. In 1688, Mr Gregory King, whose skill in political arithmetic
is so much extolled by Dr Davenant, computed the ordinary
income of labourers and out-servants to be fifteen pounds ayear
to a family, which he supposed to consist, one with another,
of three and a half persons. His calculation, therefore, though different
in appearance, corresponds very nearly at bottom with that
of Judge Hales. Both suppose the weekly expense of such families
to be about twenty-pence a-head. Both the pecuniary income and
expense of such families have increased considerably since that
time through the greater part of the kingdom, in some places more,
and in some less, though perhaps scarce anywhere so much as
some exaggerated accounts of the present wages of labour have
lately represented them to the public. The price of labour, it must
be observed, cannot be ascertained very accurately anywhere, different
prices being often paid at the same place and for the same
sort of labour, not only according to the different abilities of the
workman, but according to the easiness or hardness of the masters.
Where wages are not regulated by law, all that we can pretend
to determine is, what are the most usual; and experience seems to
shew that law can never regulate them properly, though it has
often pretended to do so.
The real recompence of labour, the real quantity of the necessaries
and conveniencies of life which it can procure to the labourer,
has, during the course of the present century, increased perhaps in
a still greater proportion than its money price. Not only grain has
become somewhat cheaper, but many other things, from which
the industrious poor derive an agreeable and wholesome variety of
food, have become a great deal cheaper. Potatoes, for example, do
not at present, through the greater part of the kingdom, cost half
the price which they used to do thirty or forty years ago. The same
thing may be said of turnips, carrots, cabbages; things which were
formerly never raised but by the spade, but which are now commonly
raised by the plough. All sort of garden stuff, too, has become
cheaper. The greater part of the apples, and even of the onions,
consumed in Great Britain, were, in the last century, imported
from Flanders. The great improvements in the coarser
manufactories of both linen and woollen cloth furnish the labourers
with cheaper and better clothing; and those in the manufactories
of the coarser metals, with cheaper and better instruments of trade,
I'm not seeing it in there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 03:24:28 PM
I think Reagan needs to be understood in the context of his time, just as Thatcher and, to a lesser degree Mulroney in Canada. They were all products of the backlash against over regulation in the 70s. While they all spoke in the language of the ideology of smaller government I think they all kept a place for government. The elimination of an appropriate place for government is what I think has changed.
Maybe for Thatcher and Mulroney, but not Reagan. :lol:
What we're witnessing is the progression of modern American conservatism's maturation as the country's primary and dominant political theme, and in a rapid and spectacular fashion.
What I don't think conservatives took into consideration was how the Democrats would wind up being collaborators and accelerating the process, with 1) Clintonianism co-opting the GOP's economic themes of welfare and free markets, and 2) surrendering to or at least compromising on culture war issues, such as gun control and abortion.
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 02:43:59 PM
I don't. I follow the Wealth of Nations by that little scottish dude.
he was revolutionary in his time, but if he lived today he'd be one of the most economically-illiterate intellectuals in the world. The reality of externalities, for instance, destroys his basic theory.
What happened to the political centre in the US?
They lost their voice in the two parties as the latter were slowly taken over by their radical elements. Apathy and the structure of our system keeps them silent.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 22, 2015, 12:27:42 PM
They lost their voice in the two parties as the latter were slowly taken over by their radical elements. Apathy and the structure of our system keeps them silent.
But that structure has existed for a long time. I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so. I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges. But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country. If that is accurate, how did that happen?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2015, 12:35:21 PM
But that structure has existed for a long time. I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so. I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges. But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country. If that is accurate, how did that happen?
Multiple factors, I think. We are bigger and less homogenized than we used to be. The slate of issues of concern at the federal and state levels continues to grow. With so many issues and so many different combinations of opinions and hot buttons, how do you effectively shove yourself into one of two boxes? People go along with whatever they feel is closest to their slate of opinions. The party leadership then starts pandering to the "base", which is code for the most die-hard radical supporters. They can do this because they know the people with more nuanced positions are unlikely to defect to the opposing party, so as long as they have a strong base and don't help the other guy they don't give a shit. As this strategy continues to work they double down on it, further radicalizing the base and pushing more people out of the system. Before you know it, most eligible voters aren't even voting because they can't get behind either option.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 22, 2015, 12:58:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2015, 12:35:21 PM
But that structure has existed for a long time. I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so. I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges. But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country. If that is accurate, how did that happen?
Multiple factors, I think. We are bigger and less homogenized than we used to be. The slate of issues of concern at the federal and state levels continues to grow. With so many issues and so many different combinations of opinions and hot buttons, how do you effectively shove yourself into one of two boxes? People go along with whatever they feel is closest to their slate of opinions. The party leadership then starts pandering to the "base", which is code for the most die-hard radical supporters. They can do this because they know the people with more nuanced positions are unlikely to defect to the opposing party, so as long as they have a strong base and don't help the other guy they don't give a shit. As this strategy continues to work they double down on it, further radicalizing the base and pushing more people out of the system. Before you know it, most eligible voters aren't even voting because they can't get behind either option.
That sounds like a reasonable explanation.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 07:13:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 02:43:59 PM
I don't. I follow the Wealth of Nations by that little scottish dude.
he was revolutionary in his time, but if he lived today he'd be one of the most economically-illiterate intellectuals in the world. The reality of externalities, for instance, destroys his basic theory.
science is like religion. If it's been written many years ago, it is still valid today and anything else is just a test of your Faith.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2015, 01:30:00 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 22, 2015, 12:58:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2015, 12:35:21 PM
But that structure has existed for a long time. I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so. I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges. But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country. If that is accurate, how did that happen?
Multiple factors, I think. We are bigger and less homogenized than we used to be. The slate of issues of concern at the federal and state levels continues to grow. With so many issues and so many different combinations of opinions and hot buttons, how do you effectively shove yourself into one of two boxes? People go along with whatever they feel is closest to their slate of opinions. The party leadership then starts pandering to the "base", which is code for the most die-hard radical supporters. They can do this because they know the people with more nuanced positions are unlikely to defect to the opposing party, so as long as they have a strong base and don't help the other guy they don't give a shit. As this strategy continues to work they double down on it, further radicalizing the base and pushing more people out of the system. Before you know it, most eligible voters aren't even voting because they can't get behind either option.
That sounds like a reasonable explanation.
And yet sometimes the parties nominate bland moderates like Romney.
Who was the last radical presidential nominee?
Reagan and Obama were both on the outside edge of their respective parties maybe. That they each won two terms might be a little telling.
Maybe running to the middle is genuinely a bad idea.
Obama is radical? :yeahright:
Well you know he is a Nig.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2015, 12:35:21 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 22, 2015, 12:27:42 PM
They lost their voice in the two parties as the latter were slowly taken over by their radical elements. Apathy and the structure of our system keeps them silent.
But that structure has existed for a long time. I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so. I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges. But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country. If that is accurate, how did that happen?
Or you could argue the opposite - the wide agreement about certain fundamental issues is so strong, it is no longer perceived as an agreement, but simply as the reality paradigm. So both mainstream parties need to differentiate themselves from each other by taking opposing views on issues of relatively minor importance, such as abortion, gay marriage, pot legalisation or immigration.
Quote from: garbon on January 26, 2015, 08:49:47 PM
Who was the last radical presidential nominee?
GW Bush?
Quote from: Warspite on January 22, 2015, 10:26:51 AM
What happened to the political centre in the US?
Like the ice caps, it's melting away.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.people-press.org%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F06%2FPP-2014-06-12-polarization-0-01.png&hash=ba78a646861f25fb5cd41b79e405d7dc5d72dd07)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn0.vox-cdn.com%2Fassets%2F4603859%2Fpolarization_engaged_and_disengaged.jpg&hash=0539f0ede13a550e483a8a16a2fec51da7d68de8)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F06%2FFT_14.06.13_congressionalPolarization.png&hash=4e0ea853dde396516ed66289ca4cf4cdbd8f10c5)
Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2015, 01:25:48 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2015, 12:35:21 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 22, 2015, 12:27:42 PM
They lost their voice in the two parties as the latter were slowly taken over by their radical elements. Apathy and the structure of our system keeps them silent.
But that structure has existed for a long time. I understand the argument that the primary system creates a bias for selecting extreme candidates but why hasn't it always done so. I suspect the answer is that once upon a time in the US their was wide agreement about certain fundamental issues and all the disagreement was at the edges. But now it seems there is no wide based agreement about anything in your country. If that is accurate, how did that happen?
Or you could argue the opposite - the wide agreement about certain fundamental issues is so strong, it is no longer perceived as an agreement, but simply as the reality paradigm. So both mainstream parties need to differentiate themselves from each other by taking opposing views on issues of relatively minor importance, such as abortion, gay marriage, pot legalisation or immigration.
In order to make that argument you would have to be able to identify the fundamental issues upon which agreement is strong. Any idea what those might be?
Quote from: viper37 on January 27, 2015, 10:50:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 26, 2015, 08:49:47 PM
Who was the last radical presidential nominee?
GW Bush?
Nope. Both Bushes were the Republican establisment, which is anything BUT conservative.
Republican establisment is about big goverment and big business, like the chamber of commerce.
The Tea Party Movement is the middle class conservative rebellion against the Republican establishment.
Bush the first was Reagan's compromise with the establishment after winning the primaries, to get the establishment behind him.
Bush the second was not even close to be a conservative, but he was a moral President that made the right decisions despite the preasure from the establisments. Goverment grew massivly under both Bushes, and Dubya failed to secure the border.
So you understand the american conservative movement, our principles are free market capitalism, small goverment, and liberty.
The Republican establisment favors crony capitalism, big goverment, and limited liberty.
And the Democrars are well, you know, capitalism of state, big goverment, no individual freedoms.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Fimages%2Fbucket%2F2015-01%2F193854_5_.jpg&hash=03b217fa8b660e339a6a32ed3cd75c73b34865ab)
I am willing to bet you 500 bucks that America is still standing February 2017.