|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 26 2012 10:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 10:13 sam!zdat wrote:
Did you get this worked up about Bush's lies re: iraq? just curious not that it's relevant at all, but I have yet to see that Bush "lied" about anything. and further, I'm not really going to discuss that because it is irrelevant. one does not decide to oppose lies and coverups because the other side does it too, one opposes lies and coverups because they are wrong. if you're implying that you or anyone else is somehow freed from the responsibility to determine the truth and tell the truth because of some perception that someone else failed to do so in the past, then you are very clearly displaying an agenda which does not include the truth, and in fact, disregards the truth as unimportant. basically, if you think Obama being President is more important than knowing why our Ambassador was murdered and why he and everyone else in the consulate and annex were denied help, than it makes perfect sense why you would be fine with the administration's lying. Susan Rice's statements and the subsequent coverup helped keep him in office, so the benefit is clearly there. what I'm arguing is that Obama's re-election should not have taken precedence over the truth for anyone, at any time. maybe I'm missing something but I can see no reason why someone would be unconcerned with covering up a murder unless they were involved or has something they think is more important than a coverup to worry about.
It sounds to me like if anything, it is YOU who wants to cover up the murders by claiming that there cannot be any investigation to discover more information than was known initially.
|
On November 26 2012 10:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:a presumption of innocence is different than predetermining innocence. in one case, you wait for the evidence and then make your determination. in the latter case, you decide that evidence is unimportant and that no amount of evidence will suffice to determine guilt. I have an attitude of presuming innocence, and as of yet, I haven't accused the administration of doing anything that the evidence does not suggest it did. but I am not going to pretend that evidence doesn't exist to satisfy a misguided need to protect Obama's presidency and reputation. it is wrong to predetermine guilt (To Kill a Mockingbird), but it is just as wrong to predetermine innocence.
Thanks for rephrasing the definition I linked.
Okay, so let's say that you're the prosecuting side. You're attempting to interpret and present the evidence in a way that makes Susan Rice and the Obama Administration look bad. Fair enough, that's your job. However, from the evidence that we've seen, it is far from clear that there were any sort of shenanigans going on with Rice's statement. You have not proven guilt to any degree whatsoever. You are not the judge, you are the prosecutor, and whatever inductive leap you've made makes no sense to anyone or you've failed to convey it properly.
Given McCain's recent softening of his stance, I think he's personally judged this to be a lost cause.
|
It's pretty clear that republicans are backing off on Rice because they figured out that the alternative is John Kerry.
|
On November 27 2012 02:19 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty clear that republicans are backing off on Rice because they figured out that the alternative is John Kerry.
Actually, they should feel pretty good about Kerry since that would put his senate seat up for grabs in a special election. The reason they're backing off on Rice is that the facts are against them.
|
I've gone ahead and updated the OP with Monday's most important US political news, which, surprise surprise, revolves almost entirely around the coming "fiscal cliff". Grover Norquist, the famed anti-tax conservative, appears to be losing traction amongst some Republican leaders; Sen. Lindsey Graham, a one time staunch supporter of the Norquist anti-tax pledge, is one amongst a handful of prominent Republicans to have issued a number of comments that suggest they may be willing to reconsider said pledge given the consequences of further political gridlock. At this point, however, "driving seat" Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House John Boehner have given little indication that they are definitively open to tax hikes.
Is it a slow leak that will grow into a cascade, or a minor drip easily plugged?
More and more, conservative Republicans in Congress are breaking from a pledge they signed years earlier against any kind of tax increase or additional tax revenue.
Facing the so-called fiscal cliff of automatic tax hikes and deep across-the-board spending cuts at the end of the year, the GOP legislators are signaling their willingness to cut a deal with President Barack Obama and Democrats that would include more money for the government.
The overall numbers remain relatively small -- a handful of senators and House members -- but they include influential veterans such as Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, along with Rep. Peter King of New York.
"We don't generate enough revenue," Graham declared Sunday on ABC, officially disagreeing with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge he signed at the behest of anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.
Others who have rejected the strict dogma of the Norquist pledge include Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Bob Corker of Tennessee, as well as Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia, who was elected in the tea party wave of 2010 and recently re-elected.
GOP resistance to anti-tax pledge grows
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this rhetoric of tax hike vs anti-tax is pretty unproductive. if you raise the capital gains rate but lower corporate tax, is it raising taxes? if you simplify the code itself but create another bracket at the high end, is that raising taxes?
|
On November 27 2012 06:06 oneofthem wrote:
this rhetoric of tax hike vs anti-tax is pretty unproductive. if you raise the capital gains rate but lower corporate tax, is it raising taxes? if you simplify the code itself but create another bracket at the high end, is that raising taxes?
You have to bear in mind that the point of opposing taxes is not just a desire to pay less, but also a desire to starve the government of revenue so that it becomes more politically feasible to scrap government programs (viz. "starve the beast").
|
On November 27 2012 07:20 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2012 06:06 oneofthem wrote:
this rhetoric of tax hike vs anti-tax is pretty unproductive. if you raise the capital gains rate but lower corporate tax, is it raising taxes? if you simplify the code itself but create another bracket at the high end, is that raising taxes?
You have to bear in mind that the point of opposing taxes is not just a desire to pay less, but also a desire to starve the government of revenue so that it becomes more politically feasible to scrap government programs (viz. "starve the beast").
Which is nice in theory, but in practice it just creates a deficit that won't be resolved until both parties agree to meet in the middle.
The democrats aren't going to cut social programs because republicans refuse to raise taxes. They are just going to borrow the money.
So anyone that is serious about really approaching the deficit problem should be open to both cutting entitlement and raising taxes, because it both covers the partisan divide, and lets you fix the problem on both ends.
That is if you think its a problem in the first place. If you're into keynesian economics you can argue that fixing the deficit will slow the circulation of money and in turn require more cuts which only lengthen the reccesion as they make the lives of millions more insecure.
Or if you're very positive, you believe the American economy will continue to thrive, so it should simply continue to borrow that cheap money and let inflation wipe out the debt. Investments are the basic foundation of any economy. If you think the bank is borrowing for less than what you can make off the money, you're robbing yourself by not borrowing it.
In theory you can explain it whatever way you like, and it all makes sense.
Whatever the case, austerity doesn't seem to be doing us in Europe any favors right about now, and the Greek disaster hasn't even popped yet.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 27 2012 06:06 oneofthem wrote:
this rhetoric of tax hike vs anti-tax is pretty unproductive. if you raise the capital gains rate but lower corporate tax, is it raising taxes? if you simplify the code itself but create another bracket at the high end, is that raising taxes?
I would assume it's a tax hike if it generates more revenue.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not all taxes are created equal. revenue collection is only one part of what a tax can impact. you'd want your tax code to encourage good behavior, achieve good social distribution outcome, and be low impact on economic dynamism.etc.
|
GROVER NORQUIST MUST DIAF.
As a moderate Rep, I hate that man.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
He's losing a lot of edge it seems. A lot of Republicans are denouncing the "no tax hike" pledge.
|
The heated discussion about socialism pre-election didn't make sense to. Was it the tax increase or a certain tax level for income tax that was socialism. I think america has moved past that suggestion anyways.
|
On November 27 2012 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 10:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:a presumption of innocence is different than predetermining innocence. in one case, you wait for the evidence and then make your determination. in the latter case, you decide that evidence is unimportant and that no amount of evidence will suffice to determine guilt. I have an attitude of presuming innocence, and as of yet, I haven't accused the administration of doing anything that the evidence does not suggest it did. but I am not going to pretend that evidence doesn't exist to satisfy a misguided need to protect Obama's presidency and reputation. it is wrong to predetermine guilt (To Kill a Mockingbird), but it is just as wrong to predetermine innocence. Thanks for rephrasing the definition I linked. Okay, so let's say that you're the prosecuting side. You're attempting to interpret and present the evidence in a way that makes Susan Rice and the Obama Administration look bad. Fair enough, that's your job. However, from the evidence that we've seen, it is far from clear that there were any sort of shenanigans going on with Rice's statement. You have not proven guilt to any degree whatsoever. You are not the judge, you are the prosecutor, and whatever inductive leap you've made makes no sense to anyone or you've failed to convey it properly. Given McCain's recent softening of his stance, I think he's personally judged this to be a lost cause.
the only possible way you could think there is nothing wrong with Rice giving completely false information, information that was known to be false days beforehand by everyone, including the media and people she was giving it to, is if you believe her story that she is incompetent.
Susan Rice is either incompetent (doesn't review information before making statements about said information) or she is complicit (knowingly propagated false information at the behest of someone higher up).
John McCain didn't really soften his stance, he just made the point that the President is the real problem and said he was eager to hear her explanation. I'll tell you, whenever I got in a lot of trouble as a kid, one of the things I would hear most out of the authority figures was something along the lines of "I'm eager to hear your explanation of this" it's a nice way of saying: "Yeah, go ahead and dig yourself deeper while you still can."
|
meh, ya'll are making a big deal out of nothing. they haven't come out and explicitly said that they are against the anti-tax pledge, most of them keep talking about getting more revenue by broadening the base.
I'm 50/50 on it. they (GOP) will either force the Dems to craft a bill and vote on it, or they will just stand firm until the fiscal cliff comes. either way, I don't see it working out well for anyone. my personal opinion is we should just let Barack drive us right over the cliff. him holding the country hostage every ten months is getting a little tiresome, and the American public blaming it on Republicans is getting boring. if he's gonna put his gun to the head of the American economy every time he wants something then we should just let him pull the trigger and see where shit lands.
|
On November 27 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
meh, ya'll are making a big deal out of nothing. they haven't come out and explicitly said that they are against the anti-tax pledge, most of them keep talking about getting more revenue by broadening the base.
I'm 50/50 on it. they (GOP) will either force the Dems to craft a bill and vote on it, or they will just stand firm until the fiscal cliff comes. either way, I don't see it working out well for anyone. my personal opinion is we should just let Barack drive us right over the cliff. him holding the country hostage every ten months is getting a little tiresome, and the American public blaming it on Republicans is getting boring. if he's gonna put his gun to the head of the American economy every time he wants something then we should just let him pull the trigger and see where shit lands.
Actually this is a big deal. It's an olive branch being held out to Democrats. These statements are public offerings to engage in compromise. The ATR pledge is a big reason the two sides haven't come to terms yet. By making their statements public on the matter, they are taking a step out on to the plank.
|
On November 27 2012 08:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2012 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 26 2012 10:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:a presumption of innocence is different than predetermining innocence. in one case, you wait for the evidence and then make your determination. in the latter case, you decide that evidence is unimportant and that no amount of evidence will suffice to determine guilt. I have an attitude of presuming innocence, and as of yet, I haven't accused the administration of doing anything that the evidence does not suggest it did. but I am not going to pretend that evidence doesn't exist to satisfy a misguided need to protect Obama's presidency and reputation. it is wrong to predetermine guilt (To Kill a Mockingbird), but it is just as wrong to predetermine innocence. Thanks for rephrasing the definition I linked. Okay, so let's say that you're the prosecuting side. You're attempting to interpret and present the evidence in a way that makes Susan Rice and the Obama Administration look bad. Fair enough, that's your job. However, from the evidence that we've seen, it is far from clear that there were any sort of shenanigans going on with Rice's statement. You have not proven guilt to any degree whatsoever. You are not the judge, you are the prosecutor, and whatever inductive leap you've made makes no sense to anyone or you've failed to convey it properly. Given McCain's recent softening of his stance, I think he's personally judged this to be a lost cause. the only possible way you could think there is nothing wrong with Rice giving completely false information, information that was known to be false days beforehand by everyone, including the media and people she was giving it to, is if you believe her story that she is incompetent. Susan Rice is either incompetent (doesn't review information before making statements about said information) or she is complicit (knowingly propagated false information at the behest of someone higher up). John McCain didn't really soften his stance, he just made the point that the President is the real problem and said he was eager to hear her explanation. I'll tell you, whenever I got in a lot of trouble as a kid, one of the things I would hear most out of the authority figures was something along the lines of "I'm eager to hear your explanation of this" it's a nice way of saying: "Yeah, go ahead and dig yourself deeper while you still can."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/
Links to full transcripts in the article. What she said each time was basically "we don't know for sure, but we don't think its premeditated and the investigation is ongoing". At most you could argue that the initial assessment was wrong and deliberately chosen to place blame on right-wingers, but I'd argue that it seemed like the most logical assumption.
|
On November 27 2012 07:31 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2012 07:20 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2012 06:06 oneofthem wrote:
this rhetoric of tax hike vs anti-tax is pretty unproductive. if you raise the capital gains rate but lower corporate tax, is it raising taxes? if you simplify the code itself but create another bracket at the high end, is that raising taxes?
You have to bear in mind that the point of opposing taxes is not just a desire to pay less, but also a desire to starve the government of revenue so that it becomes more politically feasible to scrap government programs (viz. "starve the beast"). Which is nice in theory, but in practice it just creates a deficit that won't be resolved until both parties agree to meet in the middle. The democrats aren't going to cut social programs because republicans refuse to raise taxes. They are just going to borrow the money. So anyone that is serious about really approaching the deficit problem should be open to both cutting entitlement and raising taxes, because it both covers the partisan divide, and lets you fix the problem on both ends. That is if you think its a problem in the first place. If you're into keynesian economics you can argue that fixing the deficit will slow the circulation of money and in turn require more cuts which only lengthen the reccesion as they make the lives of millions more insecure. Or if you're very positive, you believe the American economy will continue to thrive, so it should simply continue to borrow that cheap money and let inflation wipe out the debt. Investments are the basic foundation of any economy. If you think the bank is borrowing for less than what you can make off the money, you're robbing yourself by not borrowing it. In theory you can explain it whatever way you like, and it all makes sense. Whatever the case, austerity doesn't seem to be doing us in Europe any favors right about now, and the Greek disaster hasn't even popped yet.
"let inflation wipe out the debt"
Inflation does not only whipe out debt, it also whipes out safings.
It eliminates one of the key functions of monney, to store value and with that function gone the whole system stops functioning.(this argument alone should be enough to convince most people inflation is a bad idea, though later i will mention a few more)
BB can whipe out the debt anny time he likes btw though it wont solve annything, the debt is not the real problem!
You might think that inflation is not a problem when noone has significant safings but everyone has safings.
Most people dont realise it but they have huge safings in their pension plan.Inflation can not solve everything unfortunatly.
A side effect of inflation often is a higher interest rate.This will help the pension funds keep up with inflating, eliminating one problem but it creates another problem at the same time, higher interest rates wich are a deterent for investments and consumer purchases.
High inflation also leads to a huge misalocation of resources, as the inflation makes manny investments profitable wich would otherwise have been bad investments.
There is only one solution to the economic imbalances wich now become apearent due to the rise of asia.
That solution is to produce (work) more and consume less .wich can be achieved by austerity measures.
Now i know this is not what america wants to hear, but it is what america is going to do one way or another.
|
On November 27 2012 10:30 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2012 07:31 zalz wrote:On November 27 2012 07:20 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2012 06:06 oneofthem wrote:
this rhetoric of tax hike vs anti-tax is pretty unproductive. if you raise the capital gains rate but lower corporate tax, is it raising taxes? if you simplify the code itself but create another bracket at the high end, is that raising taxes?
You have to bear in mind that the point of opposing taxes is not just a desire to pay less, but also a desire to starve the government of revenue so that it becomes more politically feasible to scrap government programs (viz. "starve the beast"). Which is nice in theory, but in practice it just creates a deficit that won't be resolved until both parties agree to meet in the middle. The democrats aren't going to cut social programs because republicans refuse to raise taxes. They are just going to borrow the money. So anyone that is serious about really approaching the deficit problem should be open to both cutting entitlement and raising taxes, because it both covers the partisan divide, and lets you fix the problem on both ends. That is if you think its a problem in the first place. If you're into keynesian economics you can argue that fixing the deficit will slow the circulation of money and in turn require more cuts which only lengthen the reccesion as they make the lives of millions more insecure. Or if you're very positive, you believe the American economy will continue to thrive, so it should simply continue to borrow that cheap money and let inflation wipe out the debt. Investments are the basic foundation of any economy. If you think the bank is borrowing for less than what you can make off the money, you're robbing yourself by not borrowing it. In theory you can explain it whatever way you like, and it all makes sense. Whatever the case, austerity doesn't seem to be doing us in Europe any favors right about now, and the Greek disaster hasn't even popped yet. "let inflation wipe out the debt" Inflation does not only whipe out debt, it also whipes out safings. It eliminates one of the key functions of monney, to store value and with that function gone the whole system stops functioning.(this argument alone should be enough to convince most people inflation is a bad idea, though later i will mention a few more) BB can whipe out the debt anny time he likes btw though it wont solve annything, the debt is not the real problem! You might think that inflation is not a problem when noone has significant safings but everyone has safings. Most people dont realise it but they have huge safings in their pension plan.Inflation can not solve everything unfortunatly. A side effect of inflation often is a higher interest rate.This will help the pension funds keep up with inflating, eliminating one problem but it creates another problem at the same time, higher interest rates wich are a deterent for investments and consumer purchases. High inflation also leads to a huge misalocation of resources, as the inflation makes manny investments profitable wich would otherwise have been bad investments. There is only one solution to the economic imbalances wich now become apearent due to the rise of asia. That solution is to produce (work) more and consume less .wich can be achieved by austerity measures. Now i know this is not what america wants to hear, but it is what america is going to do one way or another.
The key function of money is to provide a line of credit to all the users of a currency. In this way, I don't have to work 8 hours on a farm for food every week, or clock in at Pfizer every time I need to refill my prescription. I can do what I do best and earn something that can be used in lieu of the work that was done to feed me.
Also, one of the benefits of inflation is actually an increase in worker wages and overall employment, which promotes individual savings. You must think, "That's crazy!" However, the decreased imports, increased exports, relatively better rates for long term loans, and the seeking of foreign assets and capital investments by the wealthy drives more liquid capital to the working the class. These are people that benefit a lot more from having cash quickly available than business. The only people that really see a decrease in savings are those that stuff their mattresses with cash, literally or figuratively with fixed amount payment plans.
|
Inflation doesn't wipe out savings, it forces investisment. It's different, it wipes out hoarding (sleeping money) or rent.
Yes it leads to misallocation of resources, only if you consider that price are efficients signals, which seems untrue (but that's another story).
Akerlof, Dickens & Perry for exemple showed that nominal salaries are rigid in decline when inflation is near 0. In this situation, the Phillips curve is no longer vertical in the long run (which means a little inflation can lower unemployment, which contredict Friedman's and Phelps work on the same curve and the idea of the NAIRU) and the salaries are biaised toward high salaries : so in the end it's better to have some inflation.
That's part of the reason why almost no reasonable economist (I don't count Friedman as reasonable economist :D) want a 0% inflation rate, Akerlof Dickens & Perry think its better to have something between 1.5% and 4% inflation. Until now, the Fed and most central banks in developped country had 2% as inflation target but in the last 10 or so years it was discussed that 2% is not enough.
Going from 2 to 4% inflation rate target would be a great step for the Fed and the European central bank.
If you are interested Akerlof G., Dickens W., Perry G. (2000) "Near-rational Wage and Price Setting in the long run Phillips Curve" in Brooking Papers on Economics Activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
