US household income disparity

re: credit to Clinton. Hey, I can even give GWB credit for one of his policies on combating AIDS, Malaria, and a host of other aid to Africa; way better than anyone before and far better than Obama.

Capt. 00:00 : While I happen to like a lot of what Obama has done, my preference is for a divided government; 2008 was one of the few times I thought that a government controlled by one party was a necessity but in order to tackle on-going issues - energy policy, immigration, deficit reduction - the only way it gets done is when both parties have something to gain from doing it and something to lose by doing nothing. An interesting election looms.

. He's always interested in stimulating the economy by Keynesian means, despite mountains of evidence that such efforts never produce the desired results and often inflict serious damage on an economy over time (as we're about to see).

! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You take one piece of Keynesian puzzle and throw it out of context. Keynes never advocated cutting taxes for the rich in times of war or prosperity. Something that has helped get us to where we are. You cats think every problem is solved by cutting taxes. Fine cut spending on programs YOU favor. Be the example but for God sake man quit twist John Maynard words!

the only way it gets done is when both parties have something to gain from doing it and something to lose by doing nothing. An interesting election looms. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Concur

You cats think every problem is solved by cutting taxes. Originally Posted by WTF

Actually, I've advocated lowering marginal tax RATES, which is not the same thing. Federal tax receipts (what you are talking about) hang around 20% of GDP regardless of where rates are. When they are low, the economy grows faster.

Actually, I've advocated lowering marginal tax RATES, which is not the same thing. Federal tax receipts (what you are talking about) hang around 20% of GDP regardless of where rates are. When they are low, the economy grows faster. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'd rather have a thousand millionaires than one billionaire.

Cutting marginial rates only helps the economy when the marginial rates are to high. There is a moving optimal point from what I understand and no that point is not always set on LOWER!

Yes the rate is around 20% of GDP but what people like Captain M fail to acknowledge is that GDP is lower during a recession (Lower tax revenues) and that is why government spending is needed. (or not I suppose, one can argue that holding off recessions like we have in the past will create a depression like bubble)

Non Sequitur

Non Sequitur Originally Posted by pjorourke

You think lowering marginal tax rates will jump start the economy? I think the natural flow of the business cycle will do it with or without your marginial tax rate cut.

You take one piece of Keynesian puzzle and throw it out of context. Keynes never advocated cutting taxes for the rich in times of war or prosperity. Something that has helped get us to where we are. You cats think every problem is solved by cutting taxes. Fine cut spending on programs YOU favor. Be the example but for God sake man quit twist John Maynard words! Originally Posted by WTF

Instead of simply continuing your habit of projecting, why don't you pay attention to what I've said and what I've advocated?

Where did I ever say that "cutting taxes" is the answer to every problem, and where did I "throw anything out of context?" You're the one who's the champion of that practice, as everyone knows.

While on the subject of Keynes, I might also add that he never advocated giant structural budget deficits when there's no credible path to budget balance, like today. He believed in running surpluses during prosperous times, or at the very least keeping budgets in balance.

If he could see what's being done in his name today, he'd be spinning in his grave.

It is because you are imbecilic in your arguments that no one pays attention to you (come to think of it, that might be spilling over into your BCD dissatisfaction as well).

It is not necesarily who is at the controls who should recieve the accolades...or the condemnation. Of course, Wild Bill did some good. But excatly what policies did he put in place that were the good ones? Just like Obamacare will have ramifications far past OB's term...Wild Bill's policies, Bush I's policies, Reagan's policies and GWB's policies have ramifications far past their own terms. But the idealogs jump back and forth when it suits them. Wild Bill was great because we were prosporous during his term? Was that because of his policies or his predecessors? And were those policies actually their policies?...or simply something compromised with congress upon? It is a bit incongruous to lay all the accolades on Wild Bill, simply because of prosperity during his term, much like it is incongruous to lay all the horror upon us today on Obama.

Once you get out of your "neener, neener" mentality you might find all kinds of things open up to you. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

It is called a business cycle

Like the QB on the FB team, POTUS gets way too much credit when things are well and way too much blame when they aren't relative to what he actually controls.

Big Bill was a man of courage.

I'm afraid I would have run like hell if I'd seen Monica in a thong! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

She had great dick sucking lips. I'd let her suck my cock anyday.

You'd beg her to give you your balls back!




I think we might be giving admin's policies' a bit to much credit and not the natural tendency's of the market. I am of the opinion that it is more the luck of the draw as to when one gets elected than what their particuliar poliys are in the overall scheme of our country's well-being. Originally Posted by WTF

yep, see my comment above

While on the subject of Keynes, I might also add that he never advocated giant structural budget deficits when there's no credible path to budget balance, like today. He believed in running surpluses during prosperous times, or at the very least keeping budgets in balance.

If he could see what's being done in his name today, he'd be spinning in his grave. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Exactly....why then do you continually pile on him and Krugman. You argue that what they advocate is incorrect and yet you misstate what they actually believe much like the blogger who ran the two minute clip on the poor woman as if she was knocking white farmers. Kinda late to claim your understanding of JMK.

Exactly....why then do you continually pile on him and Krugman. You argue that what they advocate is incorrect and yet you misstate what they actually believe... Originally Posted by WTF

Do you have any understanding at all of what you just posted?

(Obviously not.)

The point that I made was that a lot of economic malpractice is being peddled in the name of Keynes. I doubt seriously that he would approve of Krugman's call for even more massive deficits in light of the fact that we already have massive structural deficits.

If you want to gain a better understanding of the issue, rather than just pop off with clueless statements and non sequiturs, read this:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/24/news...tune/index.htm

In particular, note what Keynes said about post-World War II policy.

Kinda late to claim your understanding of JMK. Originally Posted by WTF

I read (and understood!) The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money while you were probably still living under mommy's roof.

I read (and understood!) The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money while you were probably still living under mommy's roof. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Last year?

It is called a business cycle

Like the QB on the FB team, POTUS gets way too much credit when things are well and way too much blame when they aren't relative to what he actually controls. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Agreed. But it is not just the "business cycle" either. When the Gov (and I'd prefer to address the Gov rather than POTUS) plays in the business world, it is outmatched.

FDIC insurance - Perhaps a needed item, but the Gov failed to recognize the fact that such insurance means it's citizens (for the most part) pay zero attention to the financial stablity of the banks where it places their money. Up to $250K now, guaranteed by the Gov. That covers the vast majority of people. No other business would get away with 6% equity without the Gov guarantee.

CRA - Required banks to invest dollars locally, in all areas around the bank, regardless of the merit of different areas. Banks can either not service an area or they are required to fully service the areas with lending. As such, to comply with the regulations, the bank makes riskier loans in certain areas to keep the regulators out of their hair.

ADA - Placed all kinds of regulations on business to comply with disability access. Such requirement drives up the cost of many finished products to us all...regardless of the cost/benefit to society as a whole of those costs.

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac regulations - The Gov relaxed credit standards to allow more and more of its citizens access to No Doc & Low Doc loans so that more and more of its citizens could access home ownership. This was done without much regard to normal credit standards.

Deregulation of deposit interest - Gov wanted to allow eveyone to make interest on their deposits so they deregulated interest rates on deposits...ultimately allowing even investment banks to access the general publics money. Banks and investment banks asked for and recieved the ability to make riskier investments so that they could now pay interest on the accounts that had prviously been provided interest free.

Each time the Gov extracted some "For the good of society" law or regulation from business...business extracted some relaxation of other rules to be able to comply. But the risk of the transaction never really changed. The risk was always there. It just became a question of who was taking on that risk. The thought was that business would never get outside the realm of reason. But business can be just as foolish as Gov...and in this case, Gov didn't recognize the concept of "too big to fail". Without even knowing it, through a series of errant moves over decades of time, both business and Gov transferred risk to the Gov. Did this get done with forethought by busness?...I don't think so...because business lost lots and lots of money also...and business does not like that.

Now Gov finds itself in the precarious position of just allowing busniess to fail...along with all of the citizen fallout that such failure might entail...or stepping in to prop up business...in hopes of softening the blow of the risk that has finally come home to roost.

And they (Gov) politicize those bailouts too. Allowing GM to have gone through bankrupcy would have meant a much stronger GM on the backside of bankruptcy. Shareholders should have been washed out by the creditors. But union contracts would have also been washed out in the bankruptcy...as well as unfunded pension liabilites. And such an action would not have been a popular move. So, instead we end up giving shareholders a little, make creditors take some financial hit, and hold on as much as possible to the employee benefits. But GM is a weaker company today as a result...and new jobs, at a price level that can be supported by the industry, are placed on tha back burner.

Notice I have not attributed any of this to Dems or Pubs or Conservatives or Liberals. We have all done this. But it is foolsih to think that a Dog will act like a Cat or a Cat like a Dog. Business does what it does...which is try to make money and create value. Gov does what it does, which is try to spread that money around enough to get itself reelected. Neither of those motives has redeeming value. For the 1990's and early 2000's it looked like both sides were winners. But as it has turned out, both sides are now trying to figure out who has to pay for the risk that was always there as its now time to pay the piper.

I think these are going to be big sellers. It has a haiku on the back that reads:

Obama has failed
The worst President ever
Jimmy Carter smiles!

Someone just sent me this chart:



Here's a little quiz for you guys.

Anybody notice something just a little bit fishy?

If anyone believes they will have a lower tax bill under Obama's plan, I have a bridge I'd like to sell.