Mottos are fascinating. Allen Ginsberg told us he had two:
"Nothing ventured, nothing gained."
AND
"Discretion is the better part of valor."
He lived between those two phrases.
Calvinist Coolidge said of America, "Business is the business of America."
BO won an election with the strangely vacuous phrases, "Hope and change," and "Yes we can!" Incredibly stupid phrases that led us down a chute into 20 trillion dollars of debt. Now the debt is killing the economy the way the BP spill killed the Gulf. And what did we even get for it?
What should be the new motto for America? Here is one that I've liked recently:
"We can't afford it." Ron Paul
61 comments:
You really need to say at LEAST 'Obama and Bush' when referring to why the debt is so high...
Remember that much of those trillions during Obama's first two years were structural deficits created by Bush...
And that it was Bush's policies of not paying for war, of cutting taxes during war, and of not paying for the drug benefit that created those structural deficits.
If Bush's tax cuts for the rich don't happen, our debt isn't there.
Maybe your argument is that Obama should have let the tax cuts for the rich expire? Because that would be the clearest, simplest way to help pay down the debt.
Of course, it wouldn't Be there if Bush hadn't broken what Clinton fixed.
yawn.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/gay-marriage-legalized-new-york_n_884434.html?ir=Politics
How about 'it's only a matter of time' or
Your old road is rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand,
for the times they are a changin'.
Ron Paul can't get elected because he isn't pretty enough. Most vote on looks since the advent of TV. Lincoln would have no chance now.
I used to be anarchist and am now somewhat libertarian, but I don't want anarchists or libertarians to win. I just like the voice they zing in there now and then. What's needed are the normal people who play a part, as if it's a drama, not people who actually are dramatic and doing dramatic things, but actors, like Reagan, who play a part.
Clinton could do this to an extent. All the big players for the two big parties can do it. I think Romney can do it.
What worries me about Obama is that he's getting out of his role from time to time, as with Crowley gate, and as with taking the book from Chavez. He should have thumped Chavez on the head, and then bombed him for the presumption.
America: the last resting place of the gray squirrel.
america: buy one get one free
and
save save save!
Everything has to be examined from the bottom line. Morals second, economics first. That's Ron Paul's point, it seems, and I think it's a good one. How much is a certain policy going to cost? If families have to think about their expenses and remain within them, so should the government. Obama's policies are going to max out the credit card. By his own admission we will be at 20 trillion dollars in debt by 2014 if we reelect him. Why should we do that? We need someone who can think about the bottom line. Somehow our legal system does have to be one founded on eternal principles and which can be said to be "under God" but on the other hand, our money has to mean something, or we're dead as a nation. The Democrats are the party of "sure we'll pay for your diseases, no matter what your lifestyle." The Republicans are the party of, "Sure we'll fight your battles for you." We ought to help only Protestant countries (they don't have any problems) and we ought to stay within the guidelines outlined by the OT. But even in the OT there are people who stray including Miriam and Aaron and Moses himself, and all paid. I don't think we have a Moses who can lead us out of the debt. McCain wanted to think about morality first in terms of what wars he was willing to fight (Ossetia?). We have another kind of spendthrift in terms of Mr. Obama. We need a president who can say no, because of economics, and sort of be somewhat sophisticated in terms of denying the moral claims of all kinds of lobbyists on the treasury. Now that we've got Bin Laden I think we should attenuate our business in the Islamic world, for instance. We should also get rid of communism as an idea. I don't like it.
try this onforsize:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/it-is-now-mathematically-impossible-to-pay-off-the-u-s-national-debt
!
All definitions are probably suspect and are dependent on who is making them. We live under major illusions that we take as narratives of truth.
Without a theory of some kind, no activity makes any sense. Lenin said that.
So, for instance, what now is the theory behind marriage? Should just anybody be able to marry anybody? Foucault, who is now the most widely quoted philosopher in the humanities, argued that there should be no norms whatsover, particularly those that used to regulate sexual matters should be thrown out.
No norms is the new norm.
Should a grandfather be permitted to marry his granddaughter, or grandson, providing that they are "of age"? Not sure "of age" still matters, but I throw it in for those of you who are such fussy little moralists that you still care about such things.
Think of the economic benefits. There will be flowers bought, and there will be touristic trips to the mountains or down to the sea. Who can deny love? Whole stable communities form around love!
Disgust should not play any factor in our thinking, Martha Nussbaum says. If someone says "I love roadkill!" and another person says, "Then why don't you marry it?" what indeed is stopping them? Wheeeeee!
Should two or more species be permitted to marry?
Objects?
Should a dead person be able to marry?
All definitions have disappeared. The BMI is gone, and now people think they should be free to be as fat as they wanna be.
(I love these shoes!)
No limits. You can change your gender. Probably soon people will want to change their species. But I feel like a hairy ape, so I should be able to become a gorilla, and the insurance should pay for it!
But I feel like I'm an American, so I am an American.
Inner feeling has decidedly overridden any kind of exteriorized objectivity.
America: "Be What You Wanna Be!"
Obamacare will pay for it.
"Calgon, take me away."
"How do you spell relief?"
"It keeps going and going and going..."
"Look for the Union Label..."
"You've come a long way, baby!"
Wendy, I like the last one best esp. as it would be applied to the woman in Alien after she finds she's housing one of the rascals in her chest cavity!
We need to resurrect the truth, the whole truth, and nothingbut the truth. It used to be that the SCOTUS spoke in terms of the absolute truth, and to my amazement, it still does. Westboro Baptists are still permitted to tell their truth, but enormous swaths of society would like to silence them. Fox still tell s uncomfortable truths. This is what I think Protestant life was founded on. More recently we've adopted the notion of the party line, and discipline for those who leave it. This is now the only truth that most universities are involved in. I want to bring back the Protestant notion of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Speaking from the innermost apprehension of fact and theory, without flinching due to the party line tactics of the communists.
America: where the truth shall prevail.
maybe as a country we need to revisit stephen colbert's idea of
truthiness
that sort of je nez c'est qua
which loosely translates to i don't know what it is i smell
that allows us to rest and smile knowing we have the whole truth
truthiness
a happy idea we can all get our minds around
stephen colbert should get serious and offer a democrat challenge to the sitting prez...colbert for prez
hey the girls are coming around again
this is getting interesting
jh
America's motto:
Be what we wish to seem.
What happened in New York is that they passed a bill that legalizes gay marriage.
It has nothing to do with the issue of age of consent for marriage, or incest.
Those are completely separate issues.
If you are unable to separate them, then you have a severe flaw in your thinking.
Two unlike things are not the same because they are unlike a third thing.
The moving of a boundary is not the same as the destruction of all boundaries.
You are tilting at strawmen when you talk about anything other than letting gay adults marry.
If you don't like That, then fine - just say it. Why it effects you is kinda weird to me, but so be it... Don't pretend, though, that it has anything to do with anything else other than what it is.
Of course we're against grandmothers marrying granddaughters.
Why you think being for gay marriage is the same as being for no-rules-at-all-in-marriage is beyond me.
Maybe you're too thick to realize that when someone says 'it's about love' on a slogan they are doing so with the assumption that people will be smart enough to realize that this applies to unrelated adults who are of the same gender.
My greatest fear lately has not been marriage between grandparents and grandchildren, and a growing acceptance of this amongst the voting members of the public, but rather the notion that everyone is going to get so fascinated with the Sasquatch that they will want to undergo a species exchange, in order to become this beast. I personally have watched several episodes of Animal Planet about the Sasquatch as well as a program about this mythical animal on History channel, and have felt the urge myself, the call of the wild if you will. And probably Obama's placard for Hope and Change really is a secret reference to this willingness amongst the public to change our species. We were once thought to be the greatest species, but this is in doubt. I wonder if one day everyone will up and turn into a Sasquatch, and leave me sitting here typing to a public that no longer understands English, or any other written language. I wouldn't put it past you, Brett, to be among the first to change species. Your beard is evidence of this animality in embryo.
I'm also fascinated by the one Democrat from NYC who did vote against the gay marriage proposal. His name is Ruben Diaz. He is a Pentecostal preacher. His granddaughter is gay. They held demonstrations against one another on May 11th down in the city, and then hugged one another and said they loved each other. Isn't that weird? I liked it.
I think there is too much contempt in the realm of politics.
It's probably better to just see other people as human and kind, and worried about different things. Kindness is somehow very deep in people.
I wonder if this isn't the biggest thing in people after all. Not in you, Brett, who I see as becoming an animal, but I meant in human beings in general who are trying to retain their humanity, is what I mean.
America: where humans are a little too interested in animals (pets disgust me!) and yet where most people are somewhat human (except those like Brett, who are somewhat animalistic and are always hiking as a result to try to get closer to NATURE).
The cause of our present debt crisis is undoubtedly the Repulican maneuvers during the Bush II Administrations. The surplus during the Clinton terms was erased with tax cuts and war costs--both acts "of choice" during a time when Americans weren't paying attention. The stock market and real estate bubbles were predictable events, made worse by the long term decline in American domestic investment and employment.
The "fixes" for this fell to the Obama Administration. Rather than engage the Republicans on the tax cut issues, he decided to try to "spend" our way out of the recession, but that's only a stop-gap measure. We've already begun to experience the complications of declining revenues at the state level, because states can't simply print more money and raise the debt ceiling.
The answer to our problems is to put a stop to rapid population growth, raise taxes to a level that will address the debt, stanch the flow of capital out of America by rewarding domestic investment and employment, instead of rewarding the opposite, roll back "entitlements" to 1980 levels, stop subsiziding the banks and loan industries, and extractive industries, disengage from the endless Middle East wars, close our borders, slap big tariffs on the Chinese goods coming here, and stop pretending that all our problems are the result of Robin Hood socialist policies.
The cries of pain and foul you hear will come from those who stand to lose the most from such policies. We know who they are and what they're going to tell us. Does anyone really believe any more that that they have the answers? That they have our best interests at heart? That selfishness is not a guarantee of universal prosperity?
Curtis, I'm wondering if we could put your philosophy into a motto such as, "America First."
I'm always wondering how people constitute their notion of "we." We the people. This hides lots of differences, which in turn fascinate me. One of the principle notions of "we" is that we imagine the "we" to be founded on a good, and this good in turn hides its dark side. Ayn Rand's "We" discusses the dark side of the Soviet "we," and its insatiable demand for gutting the fortunes of the wealthy and fortune-ate. When we animate our side with animosity we turn into a powerful and sometimes unstoppable beast, not so much a Sasquatch (which is solitary) but a many-headed scrum that destroys anything in its path.
The new sexual minorities hide all kinds of unsavory gangsters in their ranks -- pedophiles, S & M, polygamists, crazily promiscuous people, and of course those who believe in bestiality (this is a growing trend that now has many secret brothels around the country to service their more and more bizarre demands).
When people form into a "we" they often become a mob and once the mob tastes blood all hell breaks loose. The draft riots of 1863 worked like this.
However, I liked most of your proposals. One area where I differ is with Clinton.Clinton saved money but he did it by taking too much attention away from the military, and allowed the Islamic militants to strike at the heart of our financial industry, which caused trillions of dollars in damage, which Bush 2 had to address. This in turn cost further trillions, to change an entire enemy of a billion Muslims into a democratic set of societies in which their women had educations and input into their political process. This of course incensed the Muslims (or some of them) further).
Now Obama is up and he doesn't really have any guidleines at all. He's a weak Christian who attended a communist church for twenty years, but his real education was at the hands of communist poet Frank Marshall Davis, and whatever he encountered at Harvard (largely Marxists). His notion of "we" is compounded by his wife's input, and by the general mobocracy the Democrats have tended to become -- framing hatred of white male Christians as the enemy in order to create a rainbow colored fist. He cannot therefore close any borders and he can't cut entitlement programs.
What can he do?
He killed OBL.
He can further socialize industries, or nationalize them.
This usually makes them less responsive, and less cost effective.
Other than that, I don't think we can expect anything from him. The candidate who sounds most like you is Ron Paul. Would you agree?
The main thing is we have to continue to work on definitions. I think many of our definitions are unclear at present, and when the mobs ram through legislation, all definition is lost. When a definition is changed, such as that of marriage, which previously relied on Christian tradition, we now have a new definition derived from God knows what. As the old shoulds disappear, and Christians are increasingly silenced, I don't know what people can look to for guidelines. Desire endlessly fabricates new desires and has no sense of should. It's just a maw, with endless appetites. If desire is our new source of appeal, we are all in big trouble. But I think what people call "love," is really what people used to call "desire." When we say, "I love those chips," I think we are are really saying now, "I desire those chips."
One of my biggest worries is that desire is now the real motivation of the left, and their only source of appeal. There is nothing like a "should" left, and no tradition to which they can refer to ground their sense of responsibility. It's now just, "I want this, damn it, so give it to me."
You may be right that certain elements of the right which are grounded in financial entitlement are similar.
As I try to find a vocabulary that makes sense to me, I tend to move toward what could be described as conservative Christian. I think I understand what they mean when they talk, and how it works out in communities.
i was going to comment but now i've changed my mind
I actually haven't been hiking as much recently - only really been out once this summer, up a sweet canyon in Los Padres national forest. Saw lots of ladybugs and a seemingly endless array of waterfalls.
I don't hike to get back 'to Nature.' I am very happy to be living in a civilized society. It's a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to spend my life in the wilderness.
That being said, hiking provides a combination of things that are very good for the mind, body, and soul. You can also get a nice adrenaline kick if you're doing it right....I'm sure you know this:-)
It's funny that you mention me being a sasquatch - I've a friend who made a silly little short film about a dude who pretends to be bigfoot, and I played the guy pretending to be Bigfoot. He put up a video, sort of a marketing thing you know, of just me in the suit walking through the woods - and the Bigfoot people jumped all over it and spent lots of time claiming that it was real and analyzing it...this, even After my friend said to them that it was related to a short film (and right below the video there was always a notice that said 'this a promotional video for the short film Yellow Top.')
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=143008229073322
It's me!
Kirby, if you agree with those proposals, then you're mostly a Democrat.
I would consider that a comment.
I meant that I consider JH's comment to be a comment.
There's now lots of unchewed matter in this thread. Frankie's strange comment, and WW's comments on Calgar, and now Brett characterizes Curtis' comments as Democrat, whereas I would characterize them as libertarian a la Ron Paul.
If they were Obamaesque Obama would be attempting to put them into place. Obviously he's not doing ANYTHING about any of the solutions to America's sound of expiration.
A major cause of our present debt crisis is undoubtedly the Democrat maneuvers especially during the Clinton administration and the Democrat leadership in Congress (unfortunately unchecked by Republicans) in fueling the housing bubble through two deeply corrupted institutions, the government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Professional Democrat execu-grifters like Jim Johnson ($21 million in FM loot), Franklin Raines ($90 million), and Jamie Gorelick ($26 million) were major perps in this economy-busting fraud; chief politician-abettors were Democrat political skunks like Rep Barney Frank and former Sen Chris Dodd.
Beyond their illegal campaign finance and accounting scandals, these two corrupt GSEs were instrumental in the financial crash of 2008. As Paul Taylor in the "Financial Times" had it in 2002, their failure "could drag down a U.S. Banking system highly dependent on Fannie- and Freddie-issued bonds and that taxpayers would be on the hook for a bail-out that would dwarf the savings and loans scandal of the 1980s." And so it did.
Brett, if you're not interested in living in the wilderness either you are not a Sasquatch or else you might be a progressive one. Even the animals probably have a continuum from progressive to conservative. Dogs are probably just wolves that believe in progress and in getting along with other species and accepting everyone as equal.
Cats are probably the feline equivalent of dogs.
I can understand wolves and lions and bears.
I don't quite get pets, or how they are able to domesticate themselves, giving up their inner nature, their truest nature, just to get along in civilization. But that's how it goes these days.
Lions and tigers and bears oh my has become cats and dogs and gerbils. Wheeeeeee!
I'm having a VERY bad day.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were mishandled.
Bush's policies of unpaid for war and tax cuts were bad.
When people say 'the recession was caused by both parties,' they're right.
Those of us on the left seem to be more able to make these sorts of statements (maybe because we have a less us vs. them worldview? We're less reliant on stark black/white binaries?)
I wish Obama were a better leader - The country should have the feeling that it's somewhere between immoral and extremely unwise to give tax breaks to the rich when the nation is going into such massive debt, but somehow the Republicans have been able to frame Clinton-era tax rates as socialism.
I wish Obama had focused on jobs and the economy before spending his political capi-tall on HCR.
I wish Kirby could explain why he's a Republican even though he supports tax raises on the rich and punishment for corporations that send jobs over seas and rolling back tax breaks for oil companies and is against Bush's bank bailout.
I wish Gore had been elected president, because then Richard Clark et al. would have been on the watch when OBL attempted his attack on America, and they would have had a much better chance of stopping it, since the Clinton administration was 'obsessed with bin Laden,' unlike the Bush administration, which entered being concerned with China and Russia and without really understanding the threat from Al Qaeda. Not their fault, really, but Bush did lessen the importance of anti-terrorism in the realm of national security before 9/11.
More's the pity, no?
I wish our economy was similar to the way it was in the 50s, when CEOs didn't make hundreds and hundreds times as much money as their employees, and the tax rate for the rich was 90%.
The middle class is the strength of the American economy, and it was built by having a strong manufacturing sector and social programs that made it so the working class was also a consuming class.
We need demand-side economics - companies hire employees to meet demand...
JADL,
That's a pretty partisan, and well refuted explanation. But I'm sure you and the Heritage foundation will repeat as if it were truth, in the hopes that it will eventually be accepted as such.
But let's try some facts. Deficits are simple enough -- they're expenditures minus income.
The Bush tax cuts resulted in a reduction of federal income from 1.99T in 2001 (the last Clinton budget) to 1.78T in 2003. Expenditures went from 1.9T in 2001 to 2.2B in 2003, not accounting for the costs of a war of choice in Iraq. That's going from a net surplus of 0.21T/year to a deficit of 0.3T/year that's a $1.5B/day swing not accounting for the costs of a war of choice in Iraq, real money, even to Everett Dirksen.
The plain truth is that the Bush II administration was profligate, as well as a bought and paid for tool of folks who resent any taxes. Moreover, if the story you tell had any truth at all, let me point out that the hyperpartisan Bush II administration had five years from 2001 through 2006 during which they ruled autocratically, and they did nothing to correct these supposed excesses. If your position contained an iota of truth, they would certainly have intervened, if only to make sure that any money that was being made was being made by the wealthy people they represented, rather than quasi-governmentals.
Kirby & et al,
I am very reticent to make a comment here, because I am a Canadaian, and not a voting American; nor a politician or economist, or business person; so it is not fair for me to speak on this subject.
However, as I thought about your nation's astronomical debt (which goes far beyond my mind's comprehension!), I thought of one of my book reviews about Iceland's debt woes, and am wondering if you think there are any parallels at all with your nation?
You can read my book review here: Meltdown Iceland
Brett, I didn't realize I had agreed to all the things you said I agreed to. I read Curtis' post, and thought, I think some of this is ok. But I didn't know all of it.
Dim Lamp writes that Milton Friedman's economics caused the Icelandic crash because of thirty Icelanders who were spending more than they made. To pay it off will require 3 generations working round the clock. Those 30 Icelanders should get the death penalty, no?
I don't always understand economics, and tend to not have a very strong sense of what's right and wrong. I did order a book by Milton Friedman after reading Dim Lamp's review. I do think Marxism is always bad, but mostly because of its authoritarian structure.
Stu attempts a slap down of JADL, based more on sheer contempt for JADL's viewpoint arising from the Heritage foundation, or showing parallels with it. I see that as viewpoint discrimination and don't buy it.
Obviously Fannie and Freddie are part of the picture. They offered guaranteed loans to people who should never have had loans, but who had managed to call F and F on redlining, which meant they could get them, and the government would have to pay. Arnold Kling says when those people started to flee the repayment structure (which was easy at first and suddenly took a quantum leap in the third year) there was massive defaulting which initiated the collapse.
But in addition the bad business climate instanced by the attack on the US by Al Qaeda (Bush supporters say Clinton should have killed him but failed to do so, Clinton supporters said they had him pinned down and were watching him, while Bush was careless in this regard). Probably the truth is somewhat in between all these things.
I don't know if I'm a Republican or a Democrat. They say the largest party is neither, and it's growing.
I haven't liked Obama.
But I'm not crazy about Sarah Palin either.
I'm not really too certain about anything. I tend to rely on conservative Lutheran thought mostly because I think it works, and because it's not too hard to imagine.
I'll show you what I used to be like a few years ago in a new post, just to give you a taste.
america: shock and awe
we do it because it works
Kirby,
Stu attempts a slap down of JADL, based more on sheer contempt for JADL's viewpoint arising from the Heritage foundation, or showing parallels with it. I see that as viewpoint discrimination and don't buy it.
You're right that I have contempt for JADL's views on the subject, but this is because they are intrinsically contemptable, not because of any opinion I might have of their originators or promulgators.
Obviously Fannie and Freddie are part of the picture. They offered guaranteed loans to people who should never have had loans, but who had managed to call F and F on redlining, which meant they could get them, and the government would have to pay.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role that Fannie and Freddie played. Fannie and Freddie are both involved in the secondary mortgage market, i.e., the repurchase of mortgages issued by banks, freeing them to loan again, and the securitizing of mortgages, i.e., creating investment instruments made out of "packages" of mortgages. Neither organization is a direct lender.
Folks like JADL are quick to point to the Housing and Community Development Act (passed under the GHWB administration), and to Clinton's political pressure on the GSEs to increase the ratio of loans in distressed communities, in conformace with with HCDA. And this required (as JADL and his ilk are quick to point out) a reduced credit requirements for loans in these communities. But there were no changes in law, the reductions in credit requirements were modest, and moreover contained to a relatively small portion of the GSE's overall portfolios. Yes, Clinton asked the GSEs to be involved in subprime market, but he did so in a modest and targeted way.
Now, after Clinton left office, there are a few of ways this could have gone. If Clinton's efforts were fundamentally unsound and created an obvious risk of destabilizing the GSEs, then the "business oriented" Bush administration certainly could and should have applied counterveiling financial pressure on them, but they didn't. Instead, a limited program pushed by Clinton for a targetted purpose was pressed to became the "new normal" under the guise of "the ownership society." Not only did the GSEs underwrite subprime mortgages, they were encouraged to do so everywhere, and they did, not just in the former redlined neighborhoods. And not only were credit requirements for loans eased, they were essentially abolished, all under the watchful closed eyes of Bush era regulators. The really egregious lending practices -- no/low-documentation loans, allowing the GSEs to repurchase nonconforming "jumbo" loans, etc., all came later. The effects of these Bush-era changes were to reduce, rather than to increase, the ratio of GSE obligations in the inner city. And these changes hugely magnified the risks that the GSEs faced, because they were across the entire portfolio, rather than a small part of it.
If the "Clinton's at fault" argument made sense, the collapse in the value of the housing market would have been limited to the "black belts" of the target cities of the Great Migration. Again, that's not what happened. The big hits were in new-construction, in upscale areas.
Dim Lamp, I read your review of "Meltdown Iceland"; I don't pretend to understand the details of the Icelandic financial crisis, but it seems in its aftermath Icelanders have rejected in several referenda the "too big to fail" rule applied by Ireland (for its own banks) and the US (for its own and foreign banks) in refusing to provide restitution for the losses of foreign investors, primarily in the UK and the Netherlands. In this at least Icelanders seem to be in accord with the US Tea Party spirit in opposing bailouts of private institutions at a cost of incurring huge budget deficits.
It would be interesting to hear your views on the recent Canadian elections, for I follow them more closely and for a time lived and worked in Canada.
How about Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have all been shitty presidents?
I would throw in Bush I, Reagan, Carter, and Ford, too.
I would mostly throw in Nixon (lying, China, price controls, gold, Vietnam) but he did at least enforce all the civil rights legislation that LBJ passed.
LBJ and Kennedy were terrible.
Eisenhower wasn't too bad.
FDR was awful (far worse than Nixon but he didn't get caught).
Hoover tried but was killed by congress.
Cool-edge was pretty cool; as far as I know he did as little as possible which is what one wants in a president.
Of course, Congress is also to blame in all this--they don't have to pass laws written by the Executive AND they have the titular power to stop wars (and their costs) even if they have all but abrogated that authority.
At any rate we spend too much. This is ultimately the fault of Keynes (at least in the Modern era) and though Clinton's years in office were fiscally sound much of that had to do with Gingrich who, though a seemingly terrible person (with Clinton's sense of marriage), was a competent leader of Congress (making Clinton seem far more confident than either DeLay or Pelosi ever were able to for Bush II and Obama).
Also remember, Brett, that Obama could have reversed any of Bush's policies at any time with nothing more than a mere executive order--but he didn't.
Part of this is because he had Bush to blame (and folks like you ready to blame Bush--and unwilling to blame Clinton for revoking Sarbanes-Oxley, for instance) and part of it is because his corporate overlords are interested in keeping the masses paycheck-to-paycheck which makes them spend far more profligately than someone with a savings account.
tl;dr: our country is fucked and has been for a good long while.
Kirby, I know we've had many exchanges here on economic issues, which will be major factors in the general election next year. Some of the points raised here depend on views of various macroeconomic theories (e.g., demand-side Keynesian, supply-side, monetarist, Austrian school, etc.) or even doubts about the applicability of various macroeconomic theories, multiplier effects, and projections in general.
I think a consensus of the uncertain and undecided voters (who will probably decide the next election) doesn't credit the Obama administration with "saving" the economy at all, though there's still a large lingering resentment towards the Bush II administration, during which the recession occurred (at the end, which Democrat partisans ever try to expand criticism of in order to condemn the whole eight years).
At any rate, stu's claim that from 2001 through 2006 the Bush II administration "ruled autocratically" is rubbish; if anything they made more deferences than necessary to Democrats on entitlement reform and attention to the housing bubble (Democrat territory) that precipitated the financial crisis and recession. In addition to his triumphalist gloating, the Obama administration treated Republicans with scorn and contempt until the results of the last general election required more direct address to their views, though clearly the contempt is still evident.
But the Obama administration's interventions in the private economy, crude favoritism shown to unions and crony capitalists, refusals to enforce laws passed by Congress (e.g., in the Libyan adventure, now not "days" old as the President forecasted, but in its fourth month and counting) or to enforce regulations and restrictions voted down by Congress (e.g., cap and trade), defiance of federal court mandates (e.g. to issue drilling permits in the Gulf), non-compliance with the subpoenas issued by Congress, interference with various state legislative perogatives (from defunding Planned Parenthood to enforcing laws against illegal immigration), etc. shows the Obama administration's "rule" to be far more "autocratic" than anything the Bush II administration represented.
Not sure what's happening with Iceland. The economy wobbled, but it's almost entirely independent in terms of its energy production:
"By harnessing the abundant hydroelectric and geothermal power sources, Iceland's renewable energy industry provides over 70% of all the nation's primary energy[11] - proportionally more than any other country[12] - with 99.9% of Iceland's electricity being generated from renewables. The Icelandic Parliament decided in 1998 to convert vehicle and fishing fleets to hydrogen fuel and consequently Iceland expects to be energy-independent, using 100% renewable energy, by 2050.[13] As part of this program, the country opened the world's first public hydrogen filling station in 2003. As of 2007, it has about 40 hydrogen-powered vehicles on the road, second only to the U.S. state of California."
Obviously people have different ways of explaining what is morally defensible in terms of economics. The communists want the government to own everything and are very forgiving when individuals bottom out due to poor planning.
Others want the government to be as nonintrusive as possible.
The paradigms determine how we treat the particulars.
I'm more sympathetic to JADL's description of the economy than to that of Stu, so also treat the particulars as probably true, whereas with Stu, partially because of his irascible and contemptuous treatment of JADL, I feel something akin to disgust.
At least on this topic.
Disgust is very important and is the main thing that orients people.
It's what unites us, or divides us.
Coupla things -- one of JADL's posts just found is a couple before this one.
He talks about economic reasons for why people should adopt one party's views over another.
I found this tiny documentary from the Democratic party doesn't really do this. It just shows kids with bizarre tape loops in their heads about why they're a Democrat:
http://www.breitbart.tv/embarrassing-college-democrats-voice-insipid-reasons-for-being-democrat/
I admit that I found it on Breitbart TV, which might mean he tampered with it, but it's still funny as heck.
One more thing: anyone who hasn't been to Dim Lamp's page recently oughtta pop in there. He has a beautiful little "scribble" up, of a home with smoke coming out of a chimney. It's just deliriously heaven-sent.
Go take a peek!
Disgust unites us!
But beauty can too!
Which one is more powerful?
I agree with GM that are last really great president was Calvin Coolidge. Before that, possibly, Garfield, but he only lasted a month or so before an anarchist shot him.
Lincoln, obviously.
Then there was Madison.
It's a tribute to the way the country has been set up that we can have all kinds of goofballs including the current one as president and yet the country grinds on.
America: It Works.
(I think this is the phrase that JH was trying to undermine through irony, but I'll put it back rightside up.)
Oops. Our.
JA,
You are correct in stating that it was mainly the UK and Netherlands investors who have been left high and dry - and will either, I surmise, not get back their investments or wait a long time for them. I'm not certain what will happen there, and, from a moral perspective, they do have a right to gain back their investments, since, in some cases, they were either misinformed or lied to about those investments by the Icelander power elite. One example, if I recall correctly from the book, was an investment for a retired teachers' pension plan by the UK.
As for the Canadian election, it's a matter of P.R. power these days, with the use of contemporary media. Both the Conservatives and NDP spent a lot of money and energy on P.R. and it seemed to have paid off for them both. I think the biggest upset was relegating the Liberals to third place, something that is unprecedented in Canadian political history. This is the first time in Canadian political history that the NDP has become the official opposition. Usually they end up in third place.
It remains to be seen how well they do in this capacity - as they have most of their seats in Quebec. Traditionally that has not been the case either. Rather, the NDP has usually done best in Western Canada. So I think they are going to need to walk a political tight rope of trying to be supportive of Quebec issues and simultaneously not alienating their traditional supporters in the West. The good news of this election is the the BQ [separatist] party in Quebec only got a handfull of votes. So maybe Quebec's quest for separation-becoming their own nation is waning. Time will tell whether their political aspirations will be realized by the NDP within the federal context.
JDL:
You say--
"Kirby, I know we've had many exchanges here on economic issues, which will be major factors in the general election next year. Some of the points raised here depend on views of various macroeconomic theories (e.g., demand-side Keynesian, supply-side, monetarist, Austrian school, etc.) or even doubts about the applicability of various macroeconomic theories, multiplier effects, and projections in general."
Generally, I think it best not to exchange with those whose views you share. What is to be achieved by agreeing on everything? There is some vicarious pleasure to be derived by ganging up on those with whom you disagree, but like debates that are improperly moderated, such "triumphs" are hollow.
"I think a consensus of the uncertain and undecided voters (who will probably decide the next election) doesn't credit the Obama administration with "saving" the economy at all, though there's still a large lingering resentment towards the Bush II administration, during which the recession occurred (at the end, which Democrat partisans ever try to expand criticism of in order to condemn the whole eight years)."
This is strategic thinking, without any ethical merit whatsoever. The point of this "resentment" which you detect is the result of the ACTUAL POLICIES and ACTIONS undertaken during Dubya's two terms. You can frame it as "resentment" but it's clearly a disagreement with actual policies, not an irrational, over-emotionalized distaste. Those who have become disillusioned with Obama have done so because--as a classic centrist--he's always content to compromise in the interests of partial victories--much in the way Johnson and Reagan did (neither of whom, by the way, do I admire). Those of us who "condemn the whole eight years" do so on the evidence of history, not of speculation. You accuse Obama of paying off the banks, but this was accomplished by Bush appointees. Would Obama have done so anyway? We'll never know. I suspect he would have capitulated regardless.
End Part I
Part II
"At any rate, stu's claim that from 2001 through 2006 the Bush II administration "ruled autocratically" is rubbish."
How about the manipulation of the espionage bureaucracies to justify the Iraq invasion? How about the "signing" scandal? In general terms the Bush administration dictated policy and then twisted arms to see it was carried out. There was no negotiation within it--disagreements were not tolerated--it was military in its efficiency.
"If anything they made more deferences than necessary to Democrats on entitlement reform and attention to the housing bubble (Democrat territory) that precipitated the financial crisis and recession."
Exactly what "entitlement reform" are you referring to? The willingness of Fannie and Freddie to over-extend credit was consistent with the Republican encouragement to maintain a hands-off policy with respect to the incestuous relationship between investment and banking, which was the specific cause of the financial crisis. The "housing" crisis was actually precipitated by the credit default swaps, which revealed the frauds that had led to the overhang. It wasn't the government that wrote the bad loans--it was the private banking institutions which siphoned the Federal money out in an orgasm of "points" and "fees" and leveraged "indexing."
"In addition to his triumphalist gloating, the Obama administration treated Republicans with scorn and contempt"
Exactly what "gloating" are you referring to here? Obama's carefully worded statements and extreme diplomacy have been decried by his own supporters as being a capitulation. Hardly "triumphalist" by any stretch of the imagination.
"--though clearly the contempt is still evident."
Actually, the contempt has come most obviously from the Republican aisle--towards Obama. Racist, bigoted,--charges of fascist, socialist, "Muslim," union shill, etc.
"But the Obama administration's interventions in the private economy,"
--exactly what "interventions"? The bail-out?
"crude favoritism shown to unions"
--what favoritism?
"and crony capitalists,"
--which crony capitalists?
"refusals to enforce laws passed by Congress"
Bush II's contempt for Congress (and legal authority) was never more evident than in his "signing statements"--his masterplan strategy to enforce a novel interpretation of the "unitary executive" concept cooked up by Cheney, in which executive power was deemed to trump the other branches, beyond any challenge.
"(e.g., in the Libyan adventure,"
This is funny. The Republicans clearly favored an expansion of our presence in Libya, but for political expediency, they chose to challenge Obama's decision to act cautiously, by denying him "war powers"! What a joke!
CF, I said "resentment" over Bush II administration policies primarily because he's no longer president, but since you mentioned it, yes, there was and is considerable "irrational, over-emotionalized distaste" on the left for him. It began before his election, but the circumstances of his close victory over that pathetic windbag-buffoon Al Gore hardened it into a virulent, seething personal hatred that supplied high-octane fuel for desperate leftist calumnies like the "truther" lunacy.
And it's quite natural that someone of the Berkeley left would see President Obama as a "classic centrist," blithely ignoring the his backgroud and radical associations, his voting record, the actual political composition of the country, and the views of the supposed legions of "slope headed nitwits" (in the words of that eminent NYT "media and culture" writer and veteran coke-head David Carr) in Kansas, Missouri and elsewhere.
And sure, President Bush started the bank bailout fixes (which I opposed, along with the wasted stimili strategy), which Obama capitalized on in his efforts at first to demonise capitalism but then to milk it for campaign loot.
My mention of "entitlement reform" concerned the Bush administration's call for a series of discussions and studies on how best to finance Social Security, etc. in future, but the Democrats resorted to stone-walling the issue and talking nonsense about how the SS system was fully funded, etc.--sure, just look at the mountain of IOUs backing it up!
(Part one)
CF, on the significant role of the federal government's housing policies (and the GSEs) in precipitating the housing bubble and inevitable crash, there's a sound detailed analysis here:
http://www.aei.org/outlook/29015
At any rate, the triumphalist "hope 'n' change" and "Recovery Summer" stuff are on the back burner for now in the aftermath of the last election but doubtless soon to be revived in some tedious form for the next. Obama so far has mostly sat back and let his Congressional supporters do the hard stuff while he now trawls for campaign funds, golfs, and takes endless holidays. You know, things he's good at.
And who on "the Republican aisle" (a reference to Congressional Rs) are the bigoted "racist[s]" calling Obama a fascist or Muslim? But while he certainly shills for Big Labor and socialist policies, I'm not sure how many Congressional Rs have accused him of such.
"interventions in the private economy?" Example: GM-Chrysler bailouts as union payoffs, etc.
"crony capitalists?" Examples: GE, AMTRAK, "green" technology and mass transit boondoggles, etc.
On the Libyan adventure, what's really funny is the President denying our actions there do not constitute "hostlities," so the War Powers Act doesn't apply. Perhaps he was just too busy taking a vacation from his vacations to bother with it all.
Dim Lamp, thanks for your remarks on the Canadian elections. Seems the Liberals' gamble in calling for elections cost them dearly and awarded a parliamentary majority to Harper's Conservatives for several years. Seems also the NDP recently is trying to change their image as a strong left voice to secure their major opposition standing.
My understanding of the economics of the collapse of the Fannie and Freddie situation did see that FF was a government backup for institutions that could then go ahead and grant loans to redlined areas, as well as to anyone who wanted to move into the more expensive areas. For the first three years life was free and easy until higher mortgage rates kicked in, and then people bailed and FF then had to dive in, and stop the gushering debt and attempt to cap it.
Beyond that, I can't really say I understand more of the specifics.
A friend interested in high energy grids told me that brownouts could be created with as little as 1% unforeseen demand in one area that would then create seismic waves of attempted help which would then deplete energy in other areas, creating rolling brownouts which might suddenly take down the whole system requiring huge injections of energy from another grid (similar to a bailout).
In these cases whoever designed the system and allowed it to happen is at fault. You can't fault individual users for gaming the system to the max.
It's up to the house to rig the system in its favor so that it always stands to benefit and can't be taken down. Sympathy should go to the whole system, and never to any one user of it.
JADL:
Clarifications--
Bush II was notoriously the most "vacationed" President in U.S. history.
My problem with Obama is his reluctance to take a stand on legislative matters until critical gridlock occurs, then he calls in the participants and tries to bracket himself as a kind of ombudsman. Most of Obama's followers would feel better if he put his bets in at the beginning, and rallied support among the people, instead of waiting until the end of most debates to make his statement.
I don't think there's much argument about Obama's political strategy. He attempts to place himself in the middle of most issues, believing that that will cause the least harm. That was Clinton's strategy, and it worked for him (once Hillary was removed from the equation). Obama, for instance, has taken neutral stances on the wars, on Gay rights, Guantanamo, to the frustration of his base. If he had been acting on his "support" he would have acted forthrightly to change those policies, but he hasn't.
With respect to Social Security, you need to read about the history of the Trust Funds, and how the Congress confiscated the cash in them a generation ago, relying on "obligations" instead of real money. Including "entitlements" (based on trust funds) as part of the general budget is smoke-and-mirrors. It allows Republicans to demagogue social programs because of the "overall" obligation over time, measured against expedient massive over-expenditures like wars--which Bush II insisted be "outside" the defined budget.
The Social Security RSI trust fund is in very good shape, and could be made even better by curtailing some of the additional classes of benefit (auxilliary dependents, disability, etc.) which were part of the massive expansion of entitlements in the 1960's-thru-'90's. The real problems exist with respect to the Medicare Trust Fund, which is clearly in dire straits. Addressing that shortfall doesn't involve reducing or eliminating Social Security Retirement benefits, or of "privatizing" the program. Privatization wouldn't help anyone but the rich, who already afford considerable "retirement security" and resent having to subsidize the benefits for anyone else (i.e., the poor). Social insurance systems--like private insurance--only work when the burden is shared across the spectrum of probable beneficiaries--the pay-as-you-go concept. The problems arise when classes and types of "entitlement" are constantly expanded for political expediency, threatening the viability of the system as a whole.
Adding Gay-Lesbian partnership entitlements to the laws will obviously put considerable additional pressure on the insurance industry. What's next?--neighbor's benefits? "I love you" so "I get lover's benefits."
Perhaps these are only economic arguments and not too serious, and that somehow the bailouts will continue to work. I always tend to dramatize I suppose but I can't help but think unless we think in a sound way our country will be gone and we will end as the slaves of some mad emperor who comes to free us in the name of hope and change. I love the Trojan Women and to think of our fate in that light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMk6sDTm1wo
Genevieve Bujold as Cassandra being taken away from the city of Troy at about 3 minutes is especially moving. Terror and pity.
But as you know, I catastrophize!
Still, catastrophes happen, and will always continue to do so. Only the sane and moderate avoid them, and even then it happens. It happened even to Aristotle when the government of Athens changed.
These momentous movements in the spheres of influence -- no one know what ripples they begin, and what chains of brownouts and blackouts and rolling bankruptcies they can begin. That's why I always think it's best to leave well enough alone.
But the progressives always have new ideas for changes. And the Cassandras of the world? No one ever believes them.
Take a look at this one though: she's stunning!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMk6sDTm1wo
(My daughter got the role of Polyxena in a local stage play this summer! Polyxena was Cassandra's little sister who befriends Achilles -- he tells her about his heel, and she tells Paris, and Paris poisons an arrow and hits Achilles in the heel with it, killing him, for which she is in return killed.)
How Repubs can denounce Obama for his vacation days is beyond me...
What kind of denial does this require? To chastise for taking vacations from vacation when he has worked a heckuva lot more than Bush?
It shows an unsound mind.
CF, the President's so good at vacationing, I hope he gets the longest one of his life after next year's election. Still, it's true that no sitting president who's away from Washington DC is ever really on vacation.
I'd agree with you that President Obama holds back on many issues (like the Boeing-NLRB fiasco for his administration and unlike his shoot-from-the-hip meddling in the Gates-Cambridge Police incident); perhaps he thinks this strategy makes him appear more "presidential," but I'd say it's due (as with former President Clinton) more to political expediency in dealing with a Republican majority in at least one legislative house. In this reluctance he's taken his left base for granted, but probably with good reason--they'll support him over any Republican, and a serious third party of the left probably won't make much of a difference in the general election.
Some call Social Security a "trust fund" and others an "accounting fiction." You obviously prefer the former, I the latter. For the money collected in SS taxes goes to the Treasury's general fund and benefits come, again, from the general fund. When the benefits exceed collections they are paid by "redeeming" non-marketable government debt securities, not by paying out accumulated cash resources and this deficit trend seems irreversible in future without serious address to reforms. But as you say, the Medicare "trust fund" is in much worse shape. That's why it's important at least to put out ideas and plans (like Rep Ryan's or the Bowles-Simpson Commission's) to start the discussion that the Democrats stifled by foghorned scare tactics during the Bush II administration.
Kirby, glad to hear your daughter won the part of Polyxena! Think she'll want to change her first name to that of the character's? How does she like the idea of her character sacrificed on Achilles' tomb?
Well, speaking of unequal marriages, Polyxena was asked to marry him by one of Achilles' brothers, but she scorns him, and is killed for possibly being the tattle tale who said something about the heel, Achilles.
It's not clear exactly what her part will be, although I don't think there are speaking lines. This is Seneca's version (written against Nero but I don't know exactly how or what he did to Euripedes' version). I've ordered it.
We just got the news a few days ago.
Also, this is an excellent company with salaried actors who vacation here in the Catskills during the summers. They generally tinker with the scripts to make them more timely, and to make a comment on our own times.
Usually from a super-liberal viewpoint.
But not always.
They ran Measure for Measure to make fun of Spitzer, for instance.
So you never know what they are going to do, which is part of the fun of their plays. As for my daughter, I've got a few books on order for her. she's only 11, so doesn't know the whole story, but soon will.
She's on stage the whole time, apparently. So I'm not sure if she's there dead or alive, but she's there.
Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
To what extent is that still true?
Land of the free, home of the brave?
The first part is more true now than ever...
The second is probably about average or a little below average, though obviously we're pansies compared to the Greatest Generation.
James,
Some call Social Security a "trust fund" and others an "accounting fiction." You obviously prefer the former, I the latter.
Let's take this as a commitment on your part.
For the wealthy, earned income is a small part of their aggregate income. And so income taxes, FICA, Medicare, etc., are a negligable part of their tax exposure. What matters for them is capital gains taxes (presently capped at 15% for long term gains, and 35% for short term -- but the wealthy are mostly in long term funds managed through trusts, and so their aggregate rate is close to the long term rate), and dividend rates (which are 15% for qualified, and 35% for unqualified, and I suspect that they get more from unqualified than qualified). So I think it's reasonable to suppose that for the wealthy, the effective tax rate is less than 20%. I've heard 18% quoted, but can't give a source. Whereas, the effective tax rate (including employee and employer contributions to FICA, Medicare, etc.), is closer to 30% for folks near the poverty line.
You can't have it both ways: either FICA taxes are Social Security premia, or they're a regressive tax. You've opted for regressive tax, and so your analysis of the status quo is that the overall tax structure of this country is regressive, and moreover that you prefer it that way.
This is not just.
stu, a few clarifying questions on capital gains and dividends taxation:
Aren't these taxes in effect double taxes (like estate taxes) on capital formation in that they are taxes on the appreciation of existing assets on which the value has already been taxed?
Aren't the higher individual capital gains tax rates more likely to fall on middle class investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners, etc. than on the wealthy, who are, as you say, more likely to be able to hold onto these assets (or find other ways to avoid the taxes) rather than use them for some other compelling purpose?
Isn't it true that capital losses are only partially deductable while gains are fully taxed?
Doesn't inflation reduce the value of unindexed capital gains and dividends held in particular for the long term?
While high earners receive most of the capital gains in aggregate amount, isn't it true that of tax filers claiming capital gains, over 70% of them earn less than $100,000 a year income? I'll have to find the source for this, though.
Aren't these taxes a rather small portion of total federal tax revenues? And haven't revenues from these taxes generally increased when in the past the rates were lowered in that they stimulated economic growth and investment?
What lies behind these questions (it seems to me) is that the left thinks of the rich (Republicans in general, who they think of as being exclusively rich) as being free riders on the system, along with their duped allies (the fundamentalists who have been tricked into voting Republican because of abortion and gay marriage).
And the right thinks of the left as free riders on the system (poor minorities who either don't want to work or can't, and who are having all kinds of babies and expecting bailouts and many of whom aren't even here legally).
The middle weighs these two paradigms, and can be pushed or incited to believe in one paradigm over the other by either watching Fox or MNSNBC, or listening to NPR (a free ride for the left paid for by the government).
As someone in the middle, i.e., from a relatively poor background who managed to rise but not very far -- I see the left as much more compromised and full of free riders at this juncture.
There is a superrich elite, but I see them as actually backing the Democrats now. I see the Republican party as the party of the middle class, and the party of the work ethic, and fairness for all.
I see it as the party of the working class, and the salt of the earth: people like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain.
The elitist Democrats have made a strange alliance with the poorest in order to secure their privileges by wiping out the middle class, and instead wanting the poorest to have all the advantages. They say they want this out of fairness but I think they really want it to wipe out their closest competitors: the middle class.
The one thing I still like about the left is their discussion of ecology. Ecology is kind of funny for a guy like me who is basically terrified of nature. Everything that bites me is a disease vector. Everything that flies is oozing with bacteria. Everything that walks on four legs wants to eat me.
Especially dogs, who pretend to be all civilized, when I know that inside they are baying for my blood.
Even cats want to scratch my eyes out unless I am using them to open a tin of food for the lil' monsters.
Still, I like the notion of ecology but am worried about them bringing back the Tyrannosaurus Rex with all their experiments (this actually happens in Jurassic Park, although it is only a movie).
People who "love" nature are crazy. Of course it does have beautiful things: flowers for instance (which are a strangely seductive attempt to procreate on the part of the flower), and the colors of birds (same thing), and all the other sneaky little attempts to advance genes can of course be beautiful.
The teeth of sharks are quite wonderful if you think beauty is a matter of form follows function.
Ecology is still fun to think about, even though the people who are doing it are often Luddite lazyheads.
Bugs are incredibly pretty. But they're all appetite, 24/7.
The Democrats pretend to be the lovey-dovey party but they are monstrous killers.
The Republicans are the ones I trust to be fairer. They want America to survive, not just some specific sub-group that isn't functioning or contributing and wants a free ride, but who does have one precious commodity that the Dems just love: the vote.
Is was and always shall be, from Tammany on forwards, world without end.
sometimes I think the Republicans are too principled. Helping Iraqis? Helping Afghanis?
Charity begins at home. If you're going to help the nonfunctionals, start here.
James,
Aren't these taxes in effect double taxes (like estate taxes) on capital formation in that they are taxes on the appreciation of existing assets on which the value has already been taxed?
No, because new value has been created. That new value hasn't been taxed. As for estate taxes, they're outside of the scope of the present discussion because they're transfer taxes, and so need to be thought of in the context of sales taxes and other transfer taxes rather than in the context of income taxes.
Aren't the higher individual capital gains tax rates more likely to fall on middle class investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners, etc. than on the wealthy, who are, as you say, more likely to be able to hold onto these assets (or find other ways to avoid the taxes) rather than use them for some other compelling purpose?
I'm doubtful. The middle class receives the great majority of their income from wages. To the extent that members of the middle class have significant assets under investment, it's preponderantly in 401(k)'s or the like, which are not taxable until the funds are withdrawn at retirement. Entreprenuers and small business owners -- they're mostly investing in their own businesses. They might realize a capital gain when they sell a business, but not before, and they will have been able to take advantage of tax advantages (e.g., depreciation) that accrue from business ownership in the meantime.
Isn't it true that capital losses are only partially deductable while gains are fully taxed?
No, it is not true. What is true is that capital losses can be used to offset capital gains on a dollar for dollar basis. Unoffset capital losses can be carried forward from year to year indefinitely. The distinction that you can make is net gains incur a tax burden in the current year, whereas net losses provide tax relief in the future. But the size of the benefit is the same, all that differs is when the benefit is realized.
Doesn't inflation reduce the value of unindexed capital gains and dividends held in particular for the long term?
Yes. It also reduces the obligation incurred by debtors. But we're not talking about inflation, we're talking about tax policy.
While high earners receive most of the capital gains in aggregate amount, isn't it true that of tax filers claiming capital gains, over 70% of them earn less than $100,000 a year income? I'll have to find the source for this, though.
Might be true, but it's pretty meaningless. You'd have something to say if 70% of the capital gains dollars went to people making $100K or less. If you throw a thousand dollars into a mutual fund, you'll get a 1099-DIV every year, and qualify for that 70%. Whoop-de-do.
Aren't these taxes a rather small portion of total federal tax revenues?
Well, they're less than half of what they'd be if they were taxed at the same rate as earned income. The last year I could find a figure for was 2000, at which point capital gains taxes generated 12% of what income taxes did. Double that, and you increase federal revenues by 12%. Suddenly the deficit looks a lot smaller.
And haven't revenues from these taxes generally increased when in the past the rates were lowered in that they stimulated economic growth and investment?
Actually, I don't know. It's been claimed, but I'd like to see the data sets, and make sure that they properly account for inflation, pass statistical confidence tests, etc. I'm skeptical. After all, if the ST rate was that onerous, no one would pay it -- they'd just sit on appreciated assets until the LT rate took effect. But that's not what we observe.
American motto: If you form part of a major voting block, we'll give you a handout.
That needs to be bumperstickered:
Got vote have money.
stu, I found an article on capital gains by a WSJ editor, Stephen Moore that challenges or qualifies a few of your claims, e.g., on double taxation, capital losses, the impact of low capital gains taxes, etc. here:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CapitalGainsTaxes.html
Moore's table shows capital gains taxes (as of 2004) as making up about 2 1/2% of total federal revenues and under 6% of the contribution federal income taxes made to total revenues.
Another qualifying point: a one-time increase in capital gains may qualify earners as wealthy (say, with an income over $200,000) for that year alone, while their normal incomes may well qualify them as belonging to the middle class.
america
the pawn shop you always wanted
Land of the freaks, home of the bray.
Post a Comment