Big Ol' Smitty

But resources in the world are finite. Unlimited growth can't occur because of this stipulation. It'd be great--but it can't happen. Supplies of certain resources such as seafood and arable land are already being stretched thin. Many would suggest that a sustainable economy is the only option in the long run.

*sigh* I'm not saying that this study is right OR that I believe it. And it's obviously not unbiased. I read it, though, and the argument seemed sound. If you are so confident in your ideology then refute it. You don't have to be a smartass about everything. You seem to take everything personally...I'm just trying to make sense of complex issues, chief. Not everybody is all-knowing and all-wise.

This article suggests otherwise: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

Lies AND mistruths?!? Hot damn! The double whammy!

The Great Society was never fully funded because of the Vietnam War, which drained available resources. And it was partially overturned by Reagan's first budget.

Yes, but the New Deal did end a lot of the suffering brought on by the depression and public work projects and government employment suggested that Keynesian economic policy was at least somewhat valid. Unemployment dropped by 2 million by 1935. It is impossible to say whether the New Deal would have ended the Depression because it was interrupted by WWII.

I think the author was just trying to show that the rich were already paying less taxes than they had been almost a decade earlier. Perhaps. Good speculation. Have you read anything that empirically links the softening of the recession with the tax cuts? "The Bush administration’s economic argument that the tax cuts will somehow stimulate a dragging economy and increase employment has little support in theory and no support empirically. " I think we should govern based on concrete evidence rather than theory. These statements are both very debatable. (Try to state your opinions AS opinions rather than as facts--I'm not trying to be a jerk--this is just a pet peeve of mine. There's a whacko liberal dude in one my classes who always states his opinions as if they were facts and I want to strangle him.) But I would be very interested in reading articles or books that support them.

But it might be the difference between eating or not. Some of the kids I work with would probably argue with you on that one. But someone working on minimum wage salary can't afford a decent quality of life. With a flat tax you would be taking money from someone who already can't afford this very minimal standard of living. Some governments have made this their goal and quality of life in some of these countries is high. Again, it's a question of higher incomes vs. higher quality of life. If you are then I pity you =). I am concerned for the well-being of others and I would bet, because you are obviously intelligent and probably aspire to a somewhat "noble" way of life, that you are too. But can't these problems be fixed my driven, reform-minded people like you and me?

That's not the article's theme. I suggest you read it more carefully.

This is an article that would seem to refute that statement and some of your other statements about the fairness of the Bush tax cuts. I pulled some pertinent quotes: (sorry my cutting and pasting was pretty shitty but I'm sure you can get the gist) -"Recent data show that, even before the current tax cut was put into effect, the top 400 wealthiest taxpayers paid less taxes in 2000 than in both 1995 and in 1992. In the past nine years, the incomes of the “top 400 tax payers increased 15 times the rate of the bottom 90 percent of Americans.”2 And it is important to point out in this context that the top 1 percent of income earners in America have a 26 percent share of the tax burden while their share of the Bush tax cuts is over 50 percent.3 However we may view the rhetoric of the tax cuts, what is becoming ever more apparent is a gradual destruction of the public sector and the expansion of the market to more domains of society. In this sense, the Bush tax cuts are not merely an expression of fiscal policy. They also fundamentally serve a larger project of redirecting the way that American democracy has functioned throughout the post-war era. This redirection involves a wholesale transformation in the way that government can act to soften the harsh impacts of the capitalist economy whether it is in the form of economic inequality or environmental degradation. " -"The Bush administration’s economic argument that the tax cuts will somehow stimulate a dragging economy and increase employment has little support in theory and no support empirically. The tax cuts are proposed as part of a stimulus package, one that will promote economic growth. But, as James K. Galbraith has recently pointed out, these cuts are not a growth policy for two crucial reasons: “They are targeted to the wealthy, and they are back-loaded so as to conceal their true long-term impact on budget deficits.”8 The extent of the tax cuts is therefore structured so that the real effects on the budget will not show up for another ten years or so since tax cuts on the wealthy will continue to diminish tax revenues and therefore increasingly bankrupt the state. Of course, this is not obvious when one examines the tax plan since such easily perceived hardship would cause at least a small degree of backlash. " However we may view the rhetoric of the tax cuts, what is becoming ever more apparent is a gradual destruction of the public sector and the expansion of the market to more domains of society. In this sense, the Bush tax cuts are not merely an expression of fiscal policy. They also fundamentally serve a larger project of redirecting the way that American democracy has functioned throughout the post-war era. This redirection involves a wholesale transformation in the way that government can act to soften the harsh impacts of the capitalist economy whether it is in the form of economic inequality or environmental degradation. Redefining and Restructuring American Democracy In 1843, the German economist Wilhelm Roscher wrote that political economy is not merely the “art of acquiring wealth; it is a political science based on evaluating and governing people.”6 Economics is therefore a field that is fundamentally concerned with the very idea of the public good, it is far from being a value-free science. This is something that has been lost in recent debates on the politics of the Bush tax cut. The assumption—or even the outright belief—remains that there are legitimate economic reasons that can justify the various tax cuts which, and this is usually openly admitted, explicitly favor the wealthy. Inequalities that are generated from the tax cuts are considered “justifiable” first on supposedly economic grounds (i.e., promoting growth and employment) and, at times, on ethical grounds, in the sense that everyone deserves to keep whatever they “earn.” But neither of these contentions actually make sense. No empirical evidence links tax cuts on wealthier income earners and employment, nor is there any reliable evidence that supports a link between tax cuts on individual income and economic growth, even if there is evidence, as was discussed above, that corporate tax rates do affect growth rates. Economic policy is being done for political ends and the actual content and intention of this politics needs to be seen for what it is: a reconfiguration of American democracy. This reconfiguration means a retreat from the idea that the state ought to meliorate class differences, the acceptance of the idea that political democracy is somehow indifferent to economic and social inequality, and toward a situation where the market extends to almost every aspect of public life. It is interesting to note that the Bush administration openly admits that its tax cuts favor the wealthy. This is a marked change from even twenty years ago when the political theorist Philip Green could write that “pecial advantages for economic élites, as in the United States tax code, are introduced sub rosa, never proclaimed out loud. No one defends legislation by suggesting that the better class should be rewarded more and the inferior class less.”7 Today, there has been a shift in the political sensitivity to social inequality and class division. "It is well-known economic logic that growth could be stimulated by new and increased government spending, something that has not even been publicly debated by the Bush administration’s economic policy advisors. This is because it would put the United States back in a Keynesian policy state of mind; and this means that there would be legitimacy in refunding the state and this would give some weight to political interests that want to expand the welfare state, government programs, regulatory agencies and other things which would be antithetical to the pro-business mentality and interests of the neoconservative agenda. In other words, once the state becomes more active in the economy, there is more likelihood that that state will also be used for expanding social programs. This runs directly counter to the current trend of shrinking the state and its influence in both economy and society. There is also the question of economic growth and job creation. This issue has been at the core of the Bush administration’s arguments for the tax cuts as well as a broad conservative wave of support. Heritage Foundation economist Mark Wilson claimed in a recent study that if the tax cuts were made retroactive to the beginning of 2003, 1.6 million jobs would be added to the economy by 2011 and expand economic output by another $248 billion.9 But there have been no academic economists who have been able to verify these findings in a single peer reviewed professional journal, and it is little surprise why. The rationale is classic “supply-side” economic thinking: the more money that is poured into the economy by letting people keep what they earn—so the supply-siders argue, in theory of course—the more society as a whole will benefit since people—especially the wealthy—will be more likely to invest in the economy and start new enterprises. A “free” market liberated from any type of restraint, regulation and public accountability is therefore the optimal arrangement for liberty and democracy.10 This is the essential view that informs neoconservative political and social thought, but it is not a fact of economic science. Recall 1993 when there was an increase in the top income tax rate from 33 percent to 39.6 percent and still there was an increase in capital investment and a flourishing economy throughout the remainder of the 1990s. From the point of view of empirical evidence, the conservative argument quite simply makes no sense. "

A MikeSC, you never responded to this post...I guess you didn't see it. I was interested in seeing what you thought so I decided to bump it up. Lots of working poor people can barely afford food and a place to live. It would be nearly impossible for some to spare even a small part of their income for taxes. If you imposed a flat tax, you would have to raise the minimum wage or find some way to make sure people don't starve. Poverty in the US in real. We have to find some kind of balance between economic growth and quality of life. Is it more important to make sure people have as high an income as possible or access to all of life's necessities? Why do they have to be inefficient? I don't mean to be corny, but WE are the government...you and me. And personally, I would rather my money go to the government than Sun Myung Moon (sorry for the sarcasm but I guess this message board is rubbing off on me). Sarcasm-the tool of the weak

More on the faith-based initiative issue: "In the last few years, a few studies have looked at both faith-based and secular social service providers, and they have particularly tried to replicate the incredible results boasted by the model Texas programs. The verdict? There is no evidence that faith-based organizations work better than their secular counterparts; and, in some cases, they are actually less effective. In one study funded by the Ford Foundation, investigators found that faith-based job training programs placed only 31 percent of their clients in full-time employment while the number for secular organizations was 53 percent. " Source: Washington Monthly

Lots of working poor people can barely afford food and a place to live. It would be nearly impossible for some to spare even a small part of their income for taxes. If you imposed a flat tax, you would have to raise the minimum wage or find some way to make sure people don't starve. Poverty in the US in real. We have to find some kind of balance between economic growth and quality of life. Is it more important to make sure people have as high an income as possible or access to all of life's necessities? Why do they have to be inefficient? I don't mean to be corny, but WE are the government...you and me. And personally, I would rather my money go to the government than Sun Myung Moon (sorry for the sarcasm but I guess this message board is rubbing off on me). Sarcasm-the tool of the weak

The theory behind the progressive income tax is that the rich can bear more of a tax burden than poorer groups. More taxes for a rich person may prevent them from buying some sort of luxury good but more taxes for a very poor person may prevent them from buying a necessity. I would agree that there are problems such as these in government programs and maybe the programs we have in place aren't the best. These are problems that we are going to have to deal with and hopefully partisan politics won't keep us from doing so. You didn't seem to disagree with my point that some sort of responsibility needs to be taken when the market fails and leaves some people behind (?).

I didn't say that he didn't cut income taxes nor did I try to argue that the tax cuts were more beneficial to the rich. Once again, I suggested that maybe the tax cuts that did go to the rich (because some tax cuts DID go to the rich) weren't necessary and ultimately will ultimately do more harm than good. Tax cuts solely for middle and lower classes may have ended the recession without incurring so much debt. The class warfare thing--standard conservative talking point but what does it really mean? Social classes exist. Should we just ignore this? Are you suggesting that what I was saying was some type of class warfare? Some social programs may be wasteful, but I think they are important. Instead of cutting them altogether, wouldn't it be better to streamline them or otherwise get rid of the "waste"? The free market system is good but not inerrant and some people are left behind in our system. When government waste occurs, isn't it better to deal with the waste rather than scrap the whole program?

I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't for all people. I was suggesting that maybe it shouldn't have been. I think the tax cuts for the rich may have been unnecessary and that more targeted tax cuts would have been effective in dealing with the recession without incurring such great debt. And again, I would repeat my assertion that the debt created by the tax cut might be used as an excuse to cut programs that serve as safety nets for lower income people. In essence we will be paying for a rich person's tax cut by slashing a crucial government program.

I think more limited tax cuts that weren't so top heavy would have been better for dealing with the recession. Low and middle income people would be more likely to actually spend the money from the tax cut. These are the people who are more effected by the recession. People with high incomes have enough economic security that a recession is less likely to have much of an effect on them. I am concerned that the debt created by the tax cuts is eventually going to be alleviated by cutting social programs that serve as a safety net for low income people.

1)So it would have been responsible to cut taxes during WWII? Sometimes you simply have to have funds--war seems to me like one of those times. 2)Again your ideology is clouding your argument. The RIGHT is cutting taxes during war. It seems to me like the right is the side that is refusing to sacrifice in this case. Aren't conservatives supposed to stand for fiscal responsibility? I am suggesting that we are living in a fantasy world where you can fight multiple wars, nation build, and continue to cut taxes. The growing deficit is real. Bush may refuse to put our military security in the hands of other countries (which I think is comendable) but he may be putting our financial security in the hands of foreign creditors.

I agree with your stance on the airplane screening issue but disagree with its use in this debate. On my question of cutting taxes during war, though. -First you said it was not irresponsible because it would spur economic growth. -Second you condemned the left or, "them", as you say, for not wanting to ever sacrifice. So should we or shouldn't we sacrifice by not having tax cuts during war?

I wasn't suggesting that we should try and stop Russia. I was just suggesting that an authoritarian Russia could become a problem down the road. Not an immediate threat--just as, arguably, Iraq was not an immediate threat. The political right is the side that is intent on cutting taxes during war presently. But the country as a whole is not sacrificing is what I was trying to say. You kind of twisted a serious non-partisan question into an angry partisan diatribe. Your little blurb about scanning passengers on airplanes is tangentially related to the question at best. How about we analyze questions on an issue-by-issue basis instead of as ideologues? As Rudolph Giulliani said, neither side has a monopoly on virtue.

? This is pretty debatable. I think you're stating a somewhat rare opinion as fact. I guess a credible, accepted citation is in order to support this bold statement. Lots of things and lots of people could become a problem later. Heck, I think the way Putin is seeking authoritarian control of Russia seems like it could become problematic later. I would suggest that we should focus on more immediate problems. You didn't really address the problem. I am not a partisan--just someone who wants what's best for the country and the world. I understand what you're saying and I think attacking Bush Sr. over his tax policy may have been wrong. I just think continuing to cut taxes during expensive wars and when the deficit is high may be irresponsible. People used to sacrifice during wars. I don't feel as if we're being asked to sacrifice anything--sort of living in a fantasy world where we can fight wars and nation build and still lower taxes. I'm assuming you're a conservative--does this not strike you as fiscal irresponsibility?

((No. Sanctions were routinely violated by Saddam for years and the UN was all too happy to do nothing about it. He also intended to resume his WMD programs when the sanctions were lifted, something France, Germany, and Russia all favored. -=Mike )) "According to Duelfer, the UN inspections regime put an "economic strangle hold" on Hussein that prevented him from developing a WMD program for more than twelve years." Source: Los Angeles Times Perhaps we would have been better off focusing on the "War on Terror" proper and then deal with Saddam if and when he actually tried to resume his WMD programs. Nation building on two seperate fronts is proving difficult and our forces are being spread thin. I think the Duelfer report kind of justifies Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" critique of the war. On a side note, do you think it is irresponsible of us to continue to cut taxes when we are engaged in two wars?

This stupid man loves the Smartmarks.

Don't know why I'm interested in this but... There have been no documented incidences of people killed by wolves in North America in the last 50 years and you're more likely to be killed by lightning than by a wolf. Rabies is the main culprit in the rare cases when wolves actually kill people. Source: http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/faqpeople.html Let's find a new animal to demonize. I suggest toucans. Fuck Froot Loops.

I think I read that exactly zero people have been killed by wolves in the history of the United States. Anybody else hear this?