Log in

View Full Version : who ya gonna vote for?



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Richard_Head
10-09-2007, 08:00 PM
Richard. I wonder if any serious response is wasted on you but I'll have a go.I'm not sure what that's suppose to mean :-\.


Did you complain about the widening income gap under Clinton ? the rich certainly got a lot richer during his eight years while the middle class stayed middling. No, the gap wasn't as big, there wasn't a need to complain.


The top 1 % of taxpayers is paying a higher percentage of taxes now under Bush than they did under Clinton. Perhaps because they have more income subject to taxes???


Total tax revenue has dramatically increased
under Bush's cuts as they did under Reagan's and JFK's. I would hope so but we both know it's not sustainable.


The deficits are declining and if current trends continue the budget is headed for eventual surpluses.Similar to when Clinton was President???


The biggest reason for the income gap is not globalization so much as it is the premium our economy places on education. The lesson of today's economy is
"STAY IN SCHOOL" as college grads earn far more than high school grads and both are out-earned by those with advanced degrees.I won't dispute that, still, talk to many of the displaced tech workers out there and come back to me on that one.


Aside from class envy what is YOUR problem with tax cuts Richard ? Call it class envy if you like, I prefer to think of it as fairness and doing the right thing.


They have been proven to work EVERY time and EVERYWHERE they have been tried. I know that you THINK they are only a short term fix but you ignore the propensity of Congress to overspend and the unwillingness of the Fed to control the money supply except by manipulating interest rates. Tax cuts have given us two of the longest periods of economic growth in our, and in fact world, economic history.There's a novel idea, tax cuts and decreased spending, too bad GWB didn't give it a try.


Oh, and for the record I'm guessing I'll vote democrat (although I'm not too crazy about where either party is heading these days).

Eric Stoner
10-10-2007, 08:49 AM
I'm not sure what that's suppose to mean :-\.

No, the gap wasn't as big, there wasn't a need to complain.

Perhaps because they have more income subject to taxes???

I would hope so but we both know it's not sustainable.

Similar to when Clinton was President???

I won't dispute that, still, talk to many of the displaced tech workers out there and come back to me on that one.

Call it class envy if you like, I prefer to think of it as fairness and doing the right thing.

There's a novel idea, tax cuts and decreased spending, too bad GWB didn't give it a try.


Oh, and for the record I'm guessing I'll vote democrat (although I'm not too crazy about where either party is heading these days).


Richard, I hate to do this but you are so blindly doctrinaire that you apparently never bother to check your facts.
FACT- In 1993 the top 1% earned 14% of income. By 1996 it had gone up to 16%
Who was President during the intervening four (4) years ? Wait ! Don't tell me.Oh yeah.
CLINTON ! And that was BEFORE the balanced budget legislation and BEFORE the Capital Gains Tax Cuts that WIDENED the gap. How and why?
Because the top 1 % and even top 10 % of earners are more likely to own their own business and own their own stocks and investment vehicles outright as opposed to having pension rights or investing in mutual funds and the like.
FACT- From 1947 to 1973 all income groups saw real increases in real earnings.
From 1973 to 1982 under solidly DEMOCRAT Congresses and with Fed. Chairmen tacking every which way on monetary policy most households saw real incomes decline thanks to inflation which hit double digits under Carter.
Under eight years of Reagan ALL income groups including the "blessed poor"saw real income go up. and it was under CLINTON that real income for the top 5% peaked at TWENTY ( 20%).

Currently the top 1% pay 37% of all taxes but they make less than 30% of the money. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3% of the taxes but make 15% of the money. The top 50% pay 97% of the taxes but only get 85% of the income. How is that "FAIR" ? Shouldn't the top 50 % get 97 % of the income if they pay 97% of the taxes ? The moral I suppose is to be careful about how you define the word
"fair" and be careful what you wish for.

Btw, both you and I WISH the hedge-funders and others who take advantage of all the breaks and shelters paid their fair share of taxes. Strange isn't it how they overwhelmingly support HillBillary ? Just like they supported Bill. I haven't heard a peep out of Hillary or any other Dem. as to HOW they are going to reach off-shore income or eliminate hedge-fund loopholes. Don't hold your breath. Hillary is going to need their millions to fund HER Presidential Library just like Bill did. No wonder Bill doesn't want to disclose who his donors were.

Slow, steady, stable and non-inflationary growth is both possible and proven.
Germany did it for over 30 years after WWII. So did the U.S. So did Hong Kong;Singapore;Taiwan and we're seeing it now in Ireland; Chile, China and India.
Tax-cuts and de-regulation ALWAYS lead to greater economic growth and sound Monetary policy flattens the Business Cycle ( keeping both inflation and DEFLATION under control. ) The problems arise when the Legislatures and the voters get impatient and greedy/envious and spending out-paces inflation OR to even out a bump or two or accelerate growth the Central Bank is pressured to
increase the money supply leading straight to inflation and then to control the inflation they slam on the brakes and often cause DEFLATION. Exactly what our own Federal Reserve did in 1930 to deepen the recession and 1932 to cause The Great Depression.

At present we have both low unemployment and real gains in real earnings.

As for the deficits, I think Clinton gets too much credit and Bush gets too much blame. Clinton opposed the balanced budget legislation which he finally signed.In Cinton's first year, 1993 revenue radicall increased as we emerged from the short and shallow Bush recession of 1991-1992 and Clinton's RETROACTIVE Tax increases took effect. But for Tax Year 1994 revenues were flattening out as those nasty rich tax payers had time to shelter and offshore their income.

G.W. was certainly a "patsy" for an irresponsible Republican Congress and did not control non-Defense; non-security spending. But he did have a war to fight which Clinton did not and Clinton had the luxury of cutting Defense spending which he did every year he was in office. Bush also gave us No Child Left Behind which is proving to be more good money after bad into a lousy public school system and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit which is accelerating the Fiscal Doomsday.

Jay Zeno
10-10-2007, 09:27 AM
blindly doctrinaireLot of that going on.


that you apparently never bother to check your facts.
FACT- In 1993 the top 1% earned 14% of income. By 1996 it had gone up to 16%
Who was President during the intervening four (4) years ? Wait ! Don't tell me.Oh yeah. Did income under all groups go up during Clinton? I truly have no idea. Just asking. I was doing pretty well then.



FACT- From 1947 to 1973 all income groups saw real increases in real earnings.
From 1973 to 1982 under solidly DEMOCRAT Congresses and with Fed. Chairmen tacking every which way on monetary policy most households saw real incomes decline thanks to inflation which hit double digits under Carter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking that for those 26 years of growth, 14 were Democratic Administrations and 12 Republican. From 1973 to 1982, it was Republicans with slightly over half those years.

There's a lot of mixing of who to blame or give credit, Congress or Administrations. I guess it depends whose favored people were on watch, or not, and how you want to award credit or blame.



Currently the top 1% ...bottom 50% ... top 50% ....How is that "FAIR" ? Well, we can manipulate fairness. Apparently, just a flat rate without exemptions isn't fair, either. Darn.


Germany did it for over 30 years after WWII. So did the U.S. And the U.S. did it while pouring massive amounts of money into social and public works programs and Germany.


Exactly what our own Federal Reserve did in 1930 to deepen the recession and 1932 to cause The Great Depression.The depression started in 1929. I would ask that we not get caught up in cause. Smarter people than us can't agree. However, certain things like highly unregulated credit and commerce and bad weather were also factors.


As for the deficits, I think Clinton gets too much credit and Bush gets too much blame. One might argue that Reagan gets too much credit and Carter gets too much blame. I'm not arguing it, just saying. Presidents are going to be blamed or credited by the public for what happens on their watch. That's the reality. We can protest that, but that's the reality.

Under Clinton, we got a balanced budget (whether he wanted it or not, it was his)welfare reform, and a few other things. I've often joked that the impeachment by the Republicans was done out of frustration that he did what they only talked about.


But he did have a war to fight which Clinton did not Afghanistan, yes. He can't duck responsibility for us becoming an aggressor nation with Iraq. He wants to run up those bills, he can accept responsibility for them.

Eric Stoner
10-10-2007, 10:05 AM
Lot of that going on.

Did income under all groups go up during Clinton? I truly have no idea. Just asking. I was doing pretty well then.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking that for those 26 years of growth, 14 were Democratic Administrations and 12 Republican. From 1973 to 1982, it was Republicans with slightly over half those years.

There's a lot of mixing of who to blame or give credit, Congress or Administrations. I guess it depends whose favored people were on watch, or not, and how you want to award credit or blame.


Well, we can manipulate fairness. Apparently, just a flat rate without exemptions isn't fair, either. Darn.

And the U.S. did it while pouring massive amounts of money into social and public works programs and Germany.

The depression started in 1929. I would ask that we not get caught up in cause. Smarter people than us can't agree. However, certain things like highly unregulated credit and commerce and bad weather were also factors.

One might argue that Reagan gets too much credit and Carter gets too much blame. I'm not arguing it, just saying. Presidents are going to be blamed or credited by the public for what happens on their watch. That's the reality. We can protest that, but that's the reality.

Under Clinton, we got a balanced budget (whether he wanted it or not, it was his)welfare reform, and a few other things. I've often joked that the impeachment by the Republicans was done out of frustration that he did what they only talked about.

Afghanistan, yes. He can't duck responsibility for us becoming an aggressor nation with Iraq. He wants to run up those bills, he can accept responsibility for them.

Under Clinton the rich got richer.As I've shown, the income of the top 1% peaked under Clinton. Earnings for most of the middle class lagged well behind.

Let's look at post-war economic growth. Under Truman we had inflation as wage
and price controls were lifted but post- war production had yet to catch up. Too few dollars chasing too few goods equalled high inflation plus we still had a government sucking up a disproportionate shate of GDP. We did not see serious sustained economic growth until the JFK tax cuts of 1961 which gave us steady, sustained growth until 1973 despite The Great Society and despite Vietnam.
For all but two years from 1952 to 1981 Republican Presidents had to deal with
solidly DEMOCRAT Congresses. Reagan had a Republican Senate for six of his eight years but the House stayed in Dem hands and ALL spending bills MUST
originate in the House.

As far as The Great Depression is concerned ; it was created ENTIRELY by GOVERNMENT. Wheat price supports during WWI encouraged farmers to grow too much wheat AND to abandon sound crop rotation and soil conservation measures
which directly led to a collapse in wheat prices post WWI when Europe was able to rebuild it's own wheat growing ability and the world market was glutted. This had a tumbling or cascading effect on the U.S. farm economy especially in the Mid-West. During the same time we had an unregulated Stock Market that kept running up despite warning sign after warning sign of a recession. A recession; not a depression .
After the Stock Market Crash of 1929; Hoover and the Congress passed Smoot-Hawley raising tariffs ; contracting world trade and causing other governments to retaliate by raising their tariffs and import barriers.
After the Crash the Fed RAISED interest rates.
Hoover RAISED taxes. Both steps removed money from the economy when it was dying of monetary thirst.
The Death blow was administered by the Fed when ift failed to do what it was originally designed to do- be the lender of last resort for the U.S. bankng system.
When the banks needed loans to stay open the Fed would not lend the money
causing a run on the banks and panic in 1933. Hoover's last minute attempt to join hands with the recently elected FDR to save the banks was rebuffed by
Roosevelt. One of the first things FDR did was close all the banks. Worse yet, he raised taxes drawing even more money OUT of the economy. The Depression dragged on for years well into 1940 and it was only WWII that got everybody back to work BUT
Roosevelt gave us tax rates that were completely confiscatory and Wage and Price controls so that post war growth was retarded.

Economic history is replete with example after example of government meddling
causing damage and yet many of you like to argue for MORE government and not less.

In fairness to the Slickmeister his Second Term economics weren't too bad BUT
neither Welfare Reform nor balanced budgets nor Capital Gains tax cuts were his ideas and he initially opposed and vetoed all three.

Jay Zeno
10-10-2007, 10:13 AM
Let's go back to that blindly doctrinaire thing.

Eric Stoner
10-10-2007, 10:52 AM
Let's go back to that blindly doctrinaire thing.

Jay , in all fairness, I go where the facts take me. In high-school I was ignorant.
I started college as a quasi-socialist and left as a Free Market Capitalist. Every time I've looked for a healthy economy that has serious government control it falls dismally short. Historically, capitalism has eliminated more poverty than socialism and communism put together.

I slapped Richard with the"'doctrinaire" tag because, unlike you, he shuts himself off from facts or perhaps makes them up as needed to support his ideology. You'll have to ask him.

Eric Stoner
10-10-2007, 11:00 AM
Btw, if you look at the root causes of the Great Depression ALL can be laid at the feet of Government. Yet the Great Depression was used by Liberals and Socialists to justify Governmental intervention and involvement in the economy NONE of
which did anything to solve the essential problem- the lack of money; the shortage of capital and liquidity. FDR's policies continully retarded the very economic growth needed to get the country back on it's feet and yet today he is revered as the "Man who saved Capitalism; The Man who Saved the Country" etc.etc.

Jay Zeno
10-10-2007, 11:07 AM
I mean no disrespect by this, but I don't believe people generally go where the facts take them. I believe that they choose the facts that more conveniently keeps them where they already believe. Occasionally, there's an epiphany where their view of the facts takes them to an opposite conclusion. Then the doctrinaire mentality is entrenched more deeply in that opposite side. No one's a doctrinaire like a reformed one.

For instance, causes of the Depression. A capitalist will find facts to say it's government meddling. An anti-capitalist will point to highly unregulated commerce and the house of cards of credit that was in play. A guy like me listens to all of that, plus the global nature of the Depression, plus other things like the Dust Bowl, and thinks, "Hm, maybe it was just a perfect storm."

Frankly, I don't see much difference in the sides of the spectrum. A Republican will blame all the ills on a Democratic Congress, or Administration, or both, whichever is more convenient, either the one sitting or one preceding. A Democrat will do just the opposite, with ire directed to the Republicans. Occasionally, a President so lackluster (Carter, Bush II) will limp along so dismally that no one wants to get behind him.

By my nonscientific, casual observation, we seem to do better when we have opposite parties occupying Administration and Congress. The stable economic years of Eisenhower were during a Democratic Congress (and that interstate highway public works project and a war). We pulled out of the Reagan recession (yes, there was one) when we had a Democratic Congress. We had our good years with Clinton with Republicans holding the majority.

I might even ponder that it's because their opposition to each other tends to lessen the damage that they wreak on the rest of us.

Eric Stoner
10-10-2007, 01:25 PM
I mean no disrespect by this, but I don't believe people generally go where the facts take them. I believe that they choose the facts that more conveniently keeps them where they already believe. Occasionally, there's an epiphany where their view of the facts takes them to an opposite conclusion. Then the doctrinaire mentality is entrenched more deeply in that opposite side. No one's a doctrinaire like a reformed one.

For instance, causes of the Depression. A capitalist will find facts to say it's government meddling. An anti-capitalist will point to highly unregulated commerce and the house of cards of credit that was in play. A guy like me listens to all of that, plus the global nature of the Depression, plus other things like the Dust Bowl, and thinks, "Hm, maybe it was just a perfect storm."

Frankly, I don't see much difference in the sides of the spectrum. A Republican will blame all the ills on a Democratic Congress, or Administration, or both, whichever is more convenient, either the one sitting or one preceding. A Democrat will do just the opposite, with ire directed to the Republicans. Occasionally, a President so lackluster (Carter, Bush II) will limp along so dismally that no one wants to get behind him.

By my nonscientific, casual observation, we seem to do better when we have opposite parties occupying Administration and Congress. The stable economic years of Eisenhower were during a Democratic Congress (and that interstate highway public works project and a war). We pulled out of the Reagan recession (yes, there was one) when we had a Democratic Congress. We had our good years with Clinton with Republicans holding the majority.

I might even ponder that it's because their opposition to each other tends to lessen the damage that they wreak on the rest of us.

If you look at the actual root causes of The Great Depression they were ALL traceable back to Government meddling.
The Farm Crisis of the 1920's had it's roots in price supports for wheat put in place by Wilson. During and after WWI American wheat farmers were literally feeding the U.S. , Canada and much of Europe UNTIL European and Canadian boys went back to their farms and resumed their own wheat production.
After the war wheat price supports were never repealed so American farmers kept growing it even though the market for it was soon glutted and the price collapsed. Unable to pay their loans many farmers defaulted. Banks foreclosed. I trust I don't have to keep running through the rest of the tumbling dominos up to October 1929.
Regardless of where you, I or anyone else is on the political spectrum; those are plain, simple, indisputable, historical facts. Without government meddling the market would have returned agriculture to a sustainable equilibrium.

Prior to Wilson forming the Federal Reserve we had a Bank of the United States
founded by Hamilton and abolished ( unconstitutionally btw ) by Jackson. We had Mints that printed money and minted coins but no central national bank, The lender of last resort for troubled banks was OTHER BANKS. J.P. Morgan was famous for being able to assemble consortiums of bankers to help rescue troubled banks and in at least one case bail out the entire country during an economic crisis.

After the Stock Market Crash the country was in a recession. Not a Depression. Despite Smoot Hawley and despite Hoover's idiotic tax increases we were still not in a Depression until the banks started to fail and the banks didn't start failing until panic set in AFTER The U.S. Bank failed. Despite it's name it was a private bank HQ'd in NYC and owned by American Jews. When it ran into trouble there was an attempt by other banks to lend it the money it needed. Primarily out of anti-inflationary hysteria ( all bankers and moneymen had seen the hyperinflation in Germany ) and more than a little anti-Semitism the Federal Reserve INCREASED the discount rate and the Fed funds rate despite an impassioned plea by the head of the New York Federal Reserve predicting exactly what happened next. Unable
to borrow sufficient funds the U.S. Bank defaulted ; unable to borrow to help out the U.S. Bank other banks sat back. First there was a run on the U.S. Bank and then on almost every bank in the U.S. while the FED did NOTHING.
FDR had already been elected but not yet inaugurated ( it was still March in those days). Hoover proposed a national bail-out plan to save the banking system but rather than risk Hoover getting any credit FDR chose to sit on his hands until after he'd taken the oath of office. The Democrat Congress ( who'd sat since January) also sat on their hands.

FDR prolonged the Depression by raising taxes and over-regulatiing the economy He was however an incredibly deft politician and managed to successfully blame government failure on private enterprise..

Eric Stoner
10-10-2007, 01:43 PM
Btw, previous Depressions ( they called them "Panics" back then) were ALL caused by failures in the Banking system and/or wild fluctuations in the money supply. The Panic of 1893 being the best example.

The FED turned a recession into a Depression in 1932 by failing to perform either of it's two main functions : stabilize the Banking system by regulating reserves and the like and by being the lender of last resort. It dramatically contracted the money supply when it ought to have increased it by injecting liquidity.

It's history up until Volcker and Greenspan was rarely much better which is why we had so much "boom and bust" from the 1930's through 1981.

Jay Zeno
10-10-2007, 02:13 PM
I would ask that we not get caught up in cause. Smarter people than us can't agree.

Sigh. Well... I asked.



I know Wikipedia isn't exactly the final authoritative source, but neither is us yammering on a stripclub site, and I don't think there would be unanimous agreement on a final authoritative source in any event.

Some samples from the article:

"...since private sectors cannot be counted on to create aggregate demand during a recession, the government has the responsibility to create demand during this time, even if it has to run a deficit."

]"...in the monetarist view, the Depression was “in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces.”[6] In his view, the failure of the Federal Reserve to deal with the Depression was not a sign that monetary policy was impotent, but that the Federal Reserve exercised the wrong policies. They did not claim the Fed caused the depression, only that it failed to use policies that might have stopped a recession from turning into a depression....Essentially, the Great Depression, in the monetarist view, was caused by the fall of the money supply."

"...the constraints of the inter-war gold standard magnified the initial economic shock and were a significant obstacle to any actions that would ameliorate the growing Depression."

"...a neoclassical perspective focuses on the decline in productivity which caused the initial decline in output and a prolonged recovery due to government policies."

"...the key cause of the Depression was the expansion of the money supply in the 1920s that led to an unsustainable credit-driven boom. In their view, the Federal Reserve, which was created in 1913, shoulders much of the blame."

"...the economy produced more than it consumed, because the consumers did not have enough income. Thus the unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920s caused the Great Depression...According to this view, the root cause of the Great Depression was a global overinvestment in heavy industry capacity compared to wages and earnings from independent businesses, such as farms."

"...there was a steady stream of failures among these smaller banks throughout the decade. The city banks also suffered from structural weaknesses that made them vulnerable to a shock. Some of the nation's largest banks were failing to maintain adequate reserves and were investing heavily in the stock market or making risky loans. (That sounds familiar today.)"

"Prior to the Great Depression, a petition signed by over 1,000 economists was presented to the U.S. government warning that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act would bring disastrous economic repercussions; however, this did not stop the act from being signed into law.

"The high tariff walls critically impeded the payment of war debts. As a result of high U.S. tariffs, only a sort of cycle kept the reparations and war-debt payments going....in the scramble for liquidity that followed the 1929 stock market crash, funds flowed back from Europe to America, and Europe's fragile economies crumbled."


I'm just augmenting my statement that smarter people than you and I disagree on the causes and possible preventions. The remedial actions theorized range across the board from yanking government intervention to intense government intervention.

I maintain that one will focus on the causes that affirm one's already existing mindset. I have seen nothing in the theories here or the discussions on this board that lead me to a different conclusion.

Melonie
10-10-2007, 02:49 PM
an interesting alternative prospective on the great depression ...

Richard_Head
10-10-2007, 07:18 PM
Thanks for trying Jay Zeno, I think it's hopeless though :-\.

Eric Stoner
10-11-2007, 07:34 AM
Sigh. Well... I asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression

I know Wikipedia isn't exactly the final authoritative source, but neither is us yammering on a stripclub site, and I don't think there would be unanimous agreement on a final authoritative source in any event.

Some samples from the article:

"...since private sectors cannot be counted on to create aggregate demand during a recession, the government has the responsibility to create demand during this time, even if it has to run a deficit."

]"...in the monetarist view, the Depression was “in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces.”[6] In his view, the failure of the Federal Reserve to deal with the Depression was not a sign that monetary policy was impotent, but that the Federal Reserve exercised the wrong policies. They did not claim the Fed caused the depression, only that it failed to use policies that might have stopped a recession from turning into a depression....Essentially, the Great Depression, in the monetarist view, was caused by the fall of the money supply."

"...the constraints of the inter-war gold standard magnified the initial economic shock and were a significant obstacle to any actions that would ameliorate the growing Depression."

"...a neoclassical perspective focuses on the decline in productivity which caused the initial decline in output and a prolonged recovery due to government policies."

"...the key cause of the Depression was the expansion of the money supply in the 1920s that led to an unsustainable credit-driven boom. In their view, the Federal Reserve, which was created in 1913, shoulders much of the blame."

"...the economy produced more than it consumed, because the consumers did not have enough income. Thus the unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920s caused the Great Depression...According to this view, the root cause of the Great Depression was a global overinvestment in heavy industry capacity compared to wages and earnings from independent businesses, such as farms."

"...there was a steady stream of failures among these smaller banks throughout the decade. The city banks also suffered from structural weaknesses that made them vulnerable to a shock. Some of the nation's largest banks were failing to maintain adequate reserves and were investing heavily in the stock market or making risky loans. (That sounds familiar today.)"

"Prior to the Great Depression, a petition signed by over 1,000 economists was presented to the U.S. government warning that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act would bring disastrous economic repercussions; however, this did not stop the act from being signed into law.

"The high tariff walls critically impeded the payment of war debts. As a result of high U.S. tariffs, only a sort of cycle kept the reparations and war-debt payments going....in the scramble for liquidity that followed the 1929 stock market crash, funds flowed back from Europe to America, and Europe's fragile economies crumbled."


I'm just augmenting my statement that smarter people than you and I disagree on the causes and possible preventions. The remedial actions theorized range across the board from yanking government intervention to intense government intervention.

I maintain that one will focus on the causes that affirm one's already existing mindset. I have seen nothing in the theories here or the discussions on this board that lead me to a different conclusion.

You're point is what ? That the Great Depression had more than one cause ?
Of course it did. It was not monetary policy alone nor was it Hoover's idiotic
trade and fiscal policies.
MY point is a simple one. Without governmental meddling= Smoot-Hawley; tax increases plus the disastrous failure of the FED we would have had a "recession".
There is no doubt about that. We would have had several years of flat or even negative economic growth followed by an eventual recovery. FDR probably would have been elected and his formation of the SEC and FDIC were good things.
Maybe even the TVA. BUT
If HE hadn't raised taxes ; continued Smoot-Hawley and if The Fed had given us
slow stable monetary growth we NEVER would have had a more than TEN year long DEPRESSION- year after year of negative economic growth. Worse yet, when the economy showed signs of recovery in the mid-30's the FED slammed on the brakes and raised interest rates leading the "mini-Depression" of 1938.

Having seen what had happened in post-war Germany and believing, rightly,
that loose money and too much credit had caused the Crash of '29 EVERYONE
involved was terrified of hyper-inflation. That's why the FED overdid it and why both Hoover and FDR RAISED taxes because both wanted a "balanced budget".

Eric Stoner
10-11-2007, 07:35 AM
Thanks for trying Jay Zeno, I think it's hopeless though :-\.

What's hopeless ?

Eric Stoner
10-11-2007, 12:37 PM
an interesting alternative prospective on the great depression ...

http://www.tarpley.net/29crash.htm

Much too conspiratorial but it does show how The Gold Standard and the ruinous effects of such things as German War Reparations all played a role in collapsing the world banking system. And we're even MORE economically interdependent NOW than we were back in the 1920's and 1930's.

The most essential element for economic growth is credit; more correctly, sound credit based on trust and confidence in inter alia the soundness of the currency.

Eric Stoner
10-11-2007, 01:15 PM
Thanks for trying Jay Zeno, I think it's hopeless though :-\.

Richard. What numbers don't you like ? The Federal stats that show that AFTER
Clinton's 1993 tax increases the taxes paid by the richest 1% of Americans DECLINED ? Taxes paid, mind you. Their % of national income PEAKED under Clinton. I'm not making up my own numbers. They are all matters of public reference.

Jay Zeno
10-11-2007, 03:03 PM
Eric, don't worry about it. Nice talking with you.

Richard_Head
10-11-2007, 07:35 PM
Richard. What numbers don't you like ? The Federal stats that show that AFTER
Clinton's 1993 tax increases the taxes paid by the richest 1% of Americans DECLINED ? Taxes paid, mind you. Their % of national income PEAKED under Clinton. I'm not making up my own numbers. They are all matters of public reference.Well, as Mark Twain points out, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Eric Stoner
10-12-2007, 08:35 AM
Well, as Mark Twain points out, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Of course ! How silly of me ? When will I learn that "statistics" don't matter ?

Well, by that logic HOW can anyone say that the rich didn't get richer under G.W. Bush ? According to the stats they did.
How can we say we don't have budget deficits w/o statistics ?

Richard, if you don't like MY stats then look them up yourself. Strange, isn't it how you never seem to bother doing that ? I wonder why ?

Richard_Head
10-12-2007, 06:53 PM
Richard, if you don't like MY stats then look them up yourself. Strange, isn't it how you never seem to bother doing that ? I wonder why ?Probably because I don't have the time, desire or interest in debating you. I'm guessing I wouldn't have a hard time finding some statistics to counter your assessments though if I really wanted to (that's the great thing about statistics isn't it?).

Amelia
10-14-2007, 08:33 PM
I'm voting for Ron Paul, he's great. He's the only politician I would even consider voting for.

Eric Stoner
10-15-2007, 08:00 AM
Probably because I don't have the time, desire or interest in debating you. I'm guessing I wouldn't have a hard time finding some statistics to counter your assessments though if I really wanted to (that's the great thing about statistics isn't it?).

Some might say you're just too lazy.

Richard_Head
10-15-2007, 06:46 PM
Some might say you're just too lazy.Yeah, some might say that. Ok, here are some numbers (http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html) for you, try those on for size.

Eric Stoner
10-16-2007, 08:03 AM
Yeah, some might say that. Ok, here are some numbers (http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html) for you, try those on for size.

Richard you make this TOO easy.

The article you rely on is more than FOUR (4) years out of date and its sole focus was cuts in the TOP marginal tax rate. It took no account of state and local taxes
on taxpayers NOR the payroll tax which hits low and middle income earners the hardest.

Yes. At the time the article was written Median Income Growth and Hourly Wage Growth lagged behind other economic indicators. Today both have caught up somewhat but still lag behind. Job creation HAS caught up. The economy is creating lots of jobs today. NOW.
Unemployment by both the "household" and the other survey used is at lower levels than under Clinton. Economic growth is running at about 3% a year with LOW inflation. Low inflation is one of the key differences between NOW
and prior tax cuts- Pre-Reagan.

The "negative" GDP noted by the author was the BUSH Recession of 1991 when Greenspan raised interest rates too high and Dum-Dum RAISED taxes after getting bamboozled by Congressional Dems with insincere promises of spending cuts. Bush's tax increases lengthened and deepened what was still a relatively short and shallow recession. It ought to be remembered that this was also after
several serious Stock market corrections including a "crash" and the S & L bailout.

The article does not prove or support what you say it does.

Jay Zeno
10-16-2007, 10:14 AM
Some might say you're just too lazy.There's no need for that. Some might say one has better things to do than dig out slanted statistics to advance a little-noticed debate on a relatively meaningless section of a message board.

Eric Stoner
10-16-2007, 11:49 AM
There's no need for that. Some might say one has better things to do than dig out slanted statistics to advance a little-noticed debate on a relatively meaningless section of a message board.

Shhhhh ! He's getting better and at least TRYING to support his arguments.

Let's simplify this. Richard's position is that high taxes = prosperity. Fine.
Prove it. Back it up with stats.

Jay Zeno
10-16-2007, 12:15 PM
Oversimplification.

I could say, "Eric's point is that no taxes/no government = prosperity." But 1) it isn't not your point (I think), and 2) we can point to plenty of places in history where a complete lack of government equals anarchic and terror-ridden environments.

The country had much higher taxes in the 1950's than the 1850's and yet was more prosperous and healthy. There are both good and bad reasons for taxes. Shrug. It's finding a balance. The point where you and I might both agree is that we presently do it poorly.

Eric Stoner
10-16-2007, 12:36 PM
Oversimplification.

I could say, "Eric's point is that no taxes/no government = prosperity." But 1) it isn't not your point (I think), and 2) we can point to plenty of places in history where a complete lack of government equals anarchic and terror-ridden environments.

The country had much higher taxes in the 1950's than the 1850's and yet was more prosperous and healthy. There are both good and bad reasons for taxes. Shrug. It's finding a balance. The point where you and I might both agree is that we presently do it poorly.

You are correct. I am certainly opposed to anarchy and thus we NEED government. But what kind of government ? Doing what and at what cost ?

Afaic taxes are the means by which a government, any government, pays its bills. They should be high enough to provide sufficient funds for the government to perform its essential CONSTITUTIONAL functions and low enough to permit economic growth.

At present we could and should do a LOT better on both the taxing and spending sides of the equation.

Richard_Head
10-16-2007, 07:51 PM
The article you rely on is more than FOUR (4) years out of date and its sole focus was cuts in the TOP marginal tax rate. It took no account of state and local taxes on taxpayers NOR the payroll tax which hits low and middle income earners the hardest.I have no problem with tax cuts targeted to low and middle income earners, nor do most democrats (despite what the rightwing ideologues will tell you). Fact is though, most Republican tax cuts are directed at those at the top, those are the taxes I have issue with.


Yes. At the time the article was written Median Income Growth and Hourly Wage Growth lagged behind other economic indicators. Today both have caught up somewhat but still lag behind. ....take into account the higher cost of living and it's lagging even further behind isn't it?


Job creation HAS caught up. The economy is creating lots of jobs today. NOW. Unemployment by both the "household" and the other survey used is at lower levels than under Clinton. If I recall correctly, 22 million jobs were created under Clinton, under Bush the number is around 6 million, which approach seems to have worked best???


The "negative" GDP noted by the author was the BUSH Recession of 1991 when Greenspan raised interest rates too high and Dum-Dum RAISED taxes after getting bamboozled by Congressional Dems with insincere promises of spending cuts. Bush's tax increases lengthened and deepened what was still a relatively short and shallow recession. It ought to be remembered that this was also after several serious Stock market corrections including a "crash" and the S & L bailout.Some could also argue that the reckless spending and tax cutting of the Reagan years left Bush with no choice but to raise taxes. I like your "bamboozled by Congressional dems" logic though, LMAO.


The article does not prove or support what you say it does.How's that? I gave you fifty years worth of statistical analysis and you choose to ignore it based upon what you perceive as a couple of strong quarters. Who's the one being short sighted here???


Shhhhh ! He's getting better and at least TRYING to support his arguments.

Let's simplify this. Richard's position is that high taxes = prosperity. Fine.
Prove it. Back it up with stats.When did I say I favored high taxes??? I'm just saying taxes are a necessary evil and if we have to pay them they should be targeted to those who have the most.

So let's simplify further, according to Stoner, tax cuts to the wealthy are a cure to all that ails us. I haven't seen proof of that either.


Thanks for trying Jay Zeno, I think it's hopeless though .I think we're back to this.

Eric Stoner
10-17-2007, 10:30 AM
I have no problem with tax cuts targeted to low and middle income earners, nor do most democrats (despite what the rightwing ideologues will tell you). Fact is though, most Republican tax cuts are directed at those at the top, those are the taxes I have issue with.

....take into account the higher cost of living and it's lagging even further behind isn't it?

If I recall correctly, 22 million jobs were created under Clinton, under Bush the number is around 6 million, which approach seems to have worked best???

Some could also argue that the reckless spending and tax cutting of the Reagan years left Bush with no choice but to raise taxes. I like your "bamboozled by Congressional dems" logic though, LMAO.

How's that? I gave you fifty years worth of statistical analysis and you choose to ignore it based upon what you perceive as a couple of strong quarters. Who's the one being short sighted here???

When did I say I favored high taxes??? I'm just saying taxes are a necessary evil and if we have to pay them they should be targeted to those who have the most.

So let's simplify further, according to Stoner, tax cuts to the wealthy are a cure to all that ails us. I haven't seen proof of that either.

I think we're back to this.

Actually you and I both agree on the necessity for middle class tax cuts. Especially the Alternative Minimum Tax. Talk to Charlie Rangel who refuses to touch it.
The "Republican" tax cuts you decry ( Reagan's and G.W. Bush's ) were across the board i.e. EVERYONE's rates were reduced. We had fiscal problems not because revenue went down ( in fact Federal revenues INCREASED) but because Congress overspent.

Inflation is low despite higher fuel costs. A big part of the middle class squeeze is much, much higher state and local taxes. Particularly real estate taxes.

Your job creation numbers are WAY out of whack. We have a population of 300 million plus anywhere from 15 to 30 million "illegals" and only 4.5 % unemployment. How could so many people be currently employed unless the economy was creatinjg a lot of new jobs ?

As to G.H.W. Bush's tax increases in 1991. They were absolutely unforgiveable for several reasons.First, Bush had promised "NO New Taxes" . Secondly he raised taxes during a recession which is contrary to Economics 101. But worst of all, he agreed to do it in exchange for promised SPENDING CUTS by Congressional Dems who controlled both houses at the time. The reason it was so unforgiveable was because they had made the same deal with Reagan. Reagan agreed to raise taxes in return for dollar for dollar soending cuts i.e.Congress agreed to cut spending proportionate to the tax increases all designed to decrease the deficit. The tax increases went through but Congress NEVER delivered on the spending cuts.
Fast forward to Bush in '91. Congress came to him with the same lousy deal they'd made with Reagan. If Bush had been smart he would have said something along the lines of : "That's a GREAT idea. But first you deliver the cuts you promised my predecessor and never delivered on and then cut some more and then we can talk about raising taxes. " But of course, he didn't. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Actually saying he was "bamboozled "gives G.H.W. Bush too much credit. He had no reason to trust the Congressional Dems based on the way they reneged on their deal with Reagan and he went ahead and made the same lousy deal that Reagan had.

The "50 years of statistical analysis is fatally flawed for several reasons". The biggest one is that it totally ignores the role of the Fed. The biggest reason we've had booms and busts from 1932 up until Reagan was the Fed which continually alternated between loose and tight money. We have NOT had a sustained period of serious inflation and resulting deep recessions since 1980 because the Fed has kept the money supply relatively stable. It could do better (by using reserve requirements and tools other than interest rates to give us continual slow steady monetary growth ) but Volcker and Greenspan both did a fairly good job.
It also took no note of government spending as a % of GDP which has had a much lower trajectory in the last 25 years or so than in the past.
Since 1981 we have had the longest period of sustained economic growth in our history. It was much more than just a couple of good quarters.
Even under Clinton the top tax rate was 39.6 % which is far lower than it was under Eisenhower ( 91 %) and JFK (70%). The problem is that the uber-rich do not pay 39% ( now it's 36% ) and NEVER have. Both you and I wish they did. They use shelters and off-shoring. The reason we had relative prosperity under Eisenhower was all the pent-up demand built up during WWII when everyone had a job and made plenty of money but had little to spend it on. And when the economy slowed down as demand petered out JFK stimulated the "supply side" with his tax cuts which were heavily slanted toward the rich and to corporations.
And they worked. Until LBJ and Nixon both screwed things up by overspending.

What I have argued for is rational tax policy that permits capital formation and promotes economic growth coupled with sensible spending that is in at least rough equilibrium. The Reagan tax cuts and Bush tax cuts NEVER caused a deficit. Revenues went up! Both tax cuts resulted in revenues almost doubling. The problem came on the spending side. To get his tax cuts Reagan agreed to a LOT of pork-barrel spendingto buy Congressional votes. Even allowing for increased Defense spending under Reagan the Congress spent irresponsibly and frankly did even worse under G.W. Bush.

Eric Stoner
10-25-2007, 01:12 PM
Rangel has come up with his Tax Reform proposal and the Republican Study Group has come up with theirs. Both propose doing something about the AMT BUT Rangel's is literally a one-year fix using Tax Credits. The Republicans propose eliminating it. The worst part of Rangel's Plan are the tax increases. They will NEVER result in increased revenues.

The Republican proposal is suprerior because it just has three tax brackets; eliminates the AMT and most other deductions and credits except for home mortgage interest.

The Senate is already leaning against Rangel's plan.

We shall see how it all plays out in the months ahead.

Rangel is one of Hillary's strongest supporters. It was HIS idea that she run for the Senate in N.Y. instead of Illinois. Part of his plan is clearly a bid to gin up Election Year support for her.

greenidlady1
11-01-2007, 04:43 PM
My vote is going to Hillary thus far for reasons I already mentioned. I think if someone like Bush ends up in the White House again we're going to be in another depression 10 years from now.

Adelina
11-01-2007, 05:28 PM
Ron Paul. He is the only one who is telling us the truth.

Adelina
11-01-2007, 11:07 PM
Ron Paul stands by the Constitution, while others twist and turn it.

OdysseusNJ
11-02-2007, 03:44 PM
Regardless of who you're voting for or your politcal views I find the following websites helpful; it seems much more sensible to me to examine candidates voting records and funding rather than to listen to speeches:

- easy to read voting records on major issues

- more detailed voting records

- campaign contribution info

Those sites all have a billion potentially useful links too. Editorially they aren't exactly neutral but the data on them generally is.

(Oh, and for anyone from NJ, - nj voter registration.)

I'm going to go slink back into a nice fluffy thread involving kittens or pictures now, kthxbye.

BalletBaby
11-03-2007, 02:16 PM
Stephen Colbert:P

Sophia_Starina
11-21-2007, 12:56 AM
Yes! Stephen Colbert is awesome.

I hate to say it but I am already disinterested in this election. Granted, I do have a crush on John Edwards.... *sigh* But for some reason no one seems to like him.

Hillary annoys the be-jeezus out of me, not to mention her political credentials are pretty paltry. Obama doesn't strike me as very experienced either.

I have no clue who will win... Colbert might be a pretty good option. At least he'll be an entertaining Prez.

TheSexKitten
11-21-2007, 10:26 AM
Yes! Stephen Colbert is awesome.

I hate to say it but I am already disinterested in this election. Granted, I do have a crush on John Edwards.... *sigh* But for some reason no one seems to like him.

Hillary annoys the be-jeezus out of me, not to mention her political credentials are pretty paltry. Obama doesn't strike me as very experienced either.

I have no clue who will win... Colbert might be a pretty good option. At least he'll be an entertaining Prez.

Sorry, but dislike Hilary for whatever you want, but her political creds aren't exactly paltry...

I liked John Edwards, too!! He's also very electable... Southern, male, handsome, charismatic, etc. However I won't back him anymore because he keeps making ridiculous promises. As in they completely could NEVER happen. "Universal healthcare by 2010!" hahaha.

Eric Stoner
11-21-2007, 12:38 PM
Sorry, but dislike Hilary for whatever you want, but her political creds aren't exactly paltry...

I liked John Edwards, too!! He's also very electable... Southern, male, handsome, charismatic, etc. However I won't back him anymore because he keeps making ridiculous promises. As in they completely could NEVER happen. "Universal healthcare by 2010!" hahaha.

Here we go again. Hillary's "political creds" are fairly paltry afaic. After getting into Yale Law , she married Bill and got a job at The Rose Law Firm because and only because she was Mrs.Bill Clinton.

As First Lady she screwed up just aboput everything she touched from reforming health care to managing bimbo eruptions. As Obama recently said; it's not as though she was Bill's Treasury Secretary.

Somebody ; ANYBODY ! Kindly list one serious, actual ACCOMPLISHMENT = something that actually got done; was put in the books, because of her. To date, NOBODY has been able to do so. Nor has ANYONE been able to cite a single thing that they actually like about her.

She's not likeable. She has never really accomplished anything in the public arena ON HER OWN = WHY should anyone vote for her ?

Sophia_Starina
11-21-2007, 01:03 PM
Eric... I kinda agree. I admit Hillary has done more that I have in the political arenas... I don't really feel she has done enough to warrant me placing a check mark on her ballot.

I would.... interestingly enough vote for Condoleezza if she ran. Why? She is well educated, brilliant, can speak a mess of foreign languages, and has extensive political and international experience.

So... It's not that I don't want a woman in the white house... I just don't think Hillary can do it. I also worry that she'll win only because Americans want Bill back in the oval office... regardless of whether it's his wife's name on the desk.

BrunetteGoddess
11-21-2007, 02:41 PM
I'm still unsure as to who I am voting for. I might read this thread from beginning to end to become more informed.

But from what I have heard, Ron Paul sounds good, I just don't think he would win...

Melonie
11-21-2007, 02:52 PM
^^^ unfortunately, a vote for Ron Paul = a vote for Hillary / Obama / whoever the Democrats wind up nominating

TheSexKitten
11-21-2007, 04:51 PM
Here we go again. Hillary's "political creds" are fairly paltry afaic. After getting into Yale Law , she married Bill and got a job at The Rose Law Firm because and only because she was Mrs.Bill Clinton.

As First Lady she screwed up just aboput everything she touched from reforming health care to managing bimbo eruptions. As Obama recently said; it's not as though she was Bill's Treasury Secretary.

Somebody ; ANYBODY ! Kindly list one serious, actual ACCOMPLISHMENT = something that actually got done; was put in the books, because of her. To date, NOBODY has been able to do so. Nor has ANYONE been able to cite a single thing that they actually like about her.

She's not likeable. She has never really accomplished anything in the public arena ON HER OWN = WHY should anyone vote for her ?



Chill the fuck out. Hillary's not my #1 either.

Sophia_Starina
11-22-2007, 10:08 PM
The 2008 Election is looking more and more like a damn freak show.

Melonie
11-23-2007, 09:56 AM
^^^ actually it is arguable that every election since 1916 has been a damn freak show !

The reasons for this argument should be fairly obvious ...

- the 1920 election was the first time that 'real time media' (i.e. Westinghouse radio stations) began to make the 'public persona' of candidates as important of their policies / skills ... thus empowering media to begin shaping the 'public perception' of political candidates. However, it really took until 1932 for national radio broadcasters (RCA) plus national print media (Hearst) to gain sufficient coverage (=influence) to actually select their preferred candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt as president.

- the 1920 election was the first time that the majority of registered voters did NOT consist of 'white men with money', thus expanding the arena of vote swinging political issues beyond the basics of wars and the state of the economy (i.e. prohibition). This also marked the de-facto birth of the power of special interest political factions in the primary process i.e. selection of political candidates.

~

Sophia_Starina
11-25-2007, 12:46 AM
Dang Melonie! You are effing brilliant.

Melonie
11-25-2007, 04:38 PM
^^^ no brilliance required ... just a small study of history !

NinaDaisy
11-26-2007, 04:33 AM
I'm mighty tempted to vote for Ron Paul, even though I've never voted for a Republican.

However, I'm fiercely pro-choice and strongly support gay rights (including the right of gay couples to adopt), so that puts me in a bit of a pickle.

Ron Paul's gaining momentum, but I doubt the GOP establishment will let him get the nomination. Given that, I'll likely just end up voting for whatever Democrat gets nominated.

Man, to be back in 1992 again, when people were getting excited about Bill Clinton's campaign. Heady days folks, heady days...

Susan Wayward
11-26-2007, 04:43 AM
Yeah, 1992, when I was getting my driver's license and Ann Richards was governor of Texas. Things were so different then.

I'm a Kucinich woman myself. His backstory is straight out of a Frank Capra film. And talk about speaking the truth!

That's my preference. In reality I will vote for whichever SenatorBot receives the Democratic nomination, and wish again that we had viable third, fourth, and fifth parties in this country.