Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems.
I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt.
If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ...
The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks.
But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
The wars, yes. The tax cuts, arguably no, if you accept Laffer's theory (which I do).
I sort of do, or at least the concept makes sense in theory, but the Laffer maximum is thought to occur at around 60-70%. We're nowhere near that.
The Laffer maximum refers to maximizing government revenue, not maximizing economic output.
Yes I know.
The tax cuts wouldn't be a contributor to our fiscal issues if they occurred to the right of the Laffer maximum, since then those tax "cuts" would actually cause revenue to rise. However, since we're to the left of the Laffer maximum, then the tax cuts contributed to the fiscal deficit.
Well yes, if you accept that we're on the left side of the curve, then the tax cut will add to the deficit.
The US _is_ on the left side of the curve. There is almost zero support in the academic world for the idea that it is on the right side of the curve. Republicans will tell you that it is, but this claim certainly isn't supported by any serious academic work. To quote Joel Slemrod from the University of Michigan on at what tax rate the curve peaks (link):
I would venture that the answer is 60% or higher.... The idea that we're on the wrong side has almost no support among academics who have looked at this. Evidence doesn't suggest we're anywhere near the other end of the Laffer curve....
In fact, academic research points towards increasing taxes to increase revenue (meaning the US is to the left of the curve and not yet at the peak). See for example the recent article "The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations" published by Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (vol. 25, No 4, fall 2011, pp. 165-190, available here).
Remember, this is the Republican Laffer Curve.
Its never possible to be to the left of the maximum. Ever.
On March 23 2012 21:16 xavra41 wrote: Wow! you guys actually know some economics?!?! in two other threads i was involved it there was just a bunch of e-hippies talking about how corporations are evil lol
Well, don't get too excited. It's just the laffer curve. Muslim math (heebie-jeebies)
What it means to me is 'how much can we suck out of them before they die"
Yeah, that's basically it, which is why I originally referred to his theories rather than the curve (the idea being that tax cuts spur the economy such that increases in the tax base more than offset any short term loss of revenue from the tax cuts).
And again, as I and various other posters have demonstrated, you come down on the side considered wrong by most of the people who study this.
This is exactly what Jibba was referring to, your persistence in going with your "gut feeling" (i.e. you think we're on the right side of the Laffer curve), despite genereal evidence saying otherwise (the majority of the academic world studying this phenomenon).
Jibba was right, it really didn't take long at all.
I haven't read the specific papers justifying why it is believed that we are on left side of the curve, but pretty much every set of tax cuts that I can think of (JFK, Reagan, W.) led to such an increase in the tax base that revenues actually increased despite lower marginal rates. Why do you think Laffer advocated tax cuts?
Laffer effects may have been more in play back in the JFK days; the top rate was much higher than it is now.
Dynamic Laffer effects are too small and probably too short-lived at current rates to offset the lower rate with higher growth.
For example, I can see an argument for the economy eventually becoming 10% larger than it would have otherwise become in the long run if taxes are reduced from 50% to 45%. I can't see an argument for the economy becoming twice as large as it otherwise would have in the long run by reducing taxes from 10% to 5%.
I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt.
If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ...
The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks.
But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
The wars, yes. The tax cuts, arguably no, if you accept Laffer's theory (which I do).
I sort of do, or at least the concept makes sense in theory, but the Laffer maximum is thought to occur at around 60-70%. We're nowhere near that.
The Laffer maximum refers to maximizing government revenue, not maximizing economic output.
Yes I know.
The tax cuts wouldn't be a contributor to our fiscal issues if they occurred to the right of the Laffer maximum, since then those tax "cuts" would actually cause revenue to rise. However, since we're to the left of the Laffer maximum, then the tax cuts contributed to the fiscal deficit.
Well yes, if you accept that we're on the left side of the curve, then the tax cut will add to the deficit.
The US _is_ on the left side of the curve. There is almost zero support in the academic world for the idea that it is on the right side of the curve. Republicans will tell you that it is, but this claim certainly isn't supported by any serious academic work. To quote Joel Slemrod from the University of Michigan on at what tax rate the curve peaks (link):
I would venture that the answer is 60% or higher.... The idea that we're on the wrong side has almost no support among academics who have looked at this. Evidence doesn't suggest we're anywhere near the other end of the Laffer curve....
In fact, academic research points towards increasing taxes to increase revenue (meaning the US is to the left of the curve and not yet at the peak). See for example the recent article "The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations" published by Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (vol. 25, No 4, fall 2011, pp. 165-190, available here).
Remember, this is the Republican Laffer Curve. [pic]
Its never possible to be to the left of the maximum. Ever.
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
What happened since then?
Meh, I honestly liked McCain, even if I disagreed with him on some issues. Dude is one of the few respectable and admirable senators out there and would have been 1000x better than Romney or Santorum.
More Romney lies, Romney said the plan introduced by House Budget Committee chairman Ryan (R-Janesville)
does not balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly ... It instead preserves Medicare and preserves Social Security.
Seriously 2/3 of the Ryan budget cuts come from low income programs like food stamps and medicaid. This is just another flat out lie from a liar that should be but for some reason is not being called out for all this shit.
On March 25 2012 10:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Santorum takes Louisiana.
It's a ridiculous chore to really grasp what it means. Most estimates put Romney's delegate lead over Santorum at roughly 2 to 1. Now, what does Santorums win do..
This Gem was from Fox News 3 hours ago
Only 20 of Louisiana's 46 delegates were awarded in the primary, as most of the others will be selected at the Louisiana state GOP convention in June.
Romney picked up five of these delegates, raising his total of 568. Santorum grabbed 10 and now has 273.
The candidates now head into April 3 contests in Maryland, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
The key contest is expected to be in Wisconsin, which has Swing State status, with Maryland and the District largely Democratic territories. In addition, Santorum is not on the District ballot.
Santorum has now won 11 states, while Romney has won 20 states or territories. Gingrich has won two states, while Paul has not won any.
Rom 568 Sant 273 Fox Rom 554 Sant 241 CBS Rom 565 Sant 256 RCP Rom 568 Sant 273 Politico Rom 568 Sant 259 CNN
Bound delegates however make it look more likely that it is mathematically impossible for Romney to lock it up before convention unless he starts doubling totals(aka someone needs to drop out). If the three remaining rivals stick it out, they can literally force this to convention. Get your popcorn.
Lousiana was about the halfway mark in the conventions and Ronmey needed a solid 572ish to force others hands... it's going to go another month at absolute minimum. Many upcoming states allocate on the vote, so, if Santorum wins just a few, his wins are wins in favor of Gingrich, Paul, and a very interesting convention. Romney needs to go on a tear, and I just think it's not going to happen because he just failed to dominate a weak field early. Not to mention he is taking shots to the face politically and cannot shake Santorum of all people.
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's Senior Adviser David Plouffe called former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's comments on the shooting of Trayvon Martin "reprehensible" on Sunday, saying they came from a man who was "clearly in the last throes of his political career."
On Friday, Obama broke his silence on the shooting of the unarmed African-American teenager in Florida, a case that has launched a national movement.
"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said, underscoring how the issue affected him on a personal level. "I think [Trayvon's parents] are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened."
Gingrich took exception with Obama's comments during a radio interview later on Friday, saying they were "disgraceful."
"It's not a question of who that young man looked like," he said. "Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified, no matter what the ethnic background. Is the president suggesting that, if it had been a white who'd been shot, that would be OK, because it wouldn't look like him? That's just nonsense."
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's Senior Adviser David Plouffe called former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's comments on the shooting of Trayvon Martin "reprehensible" on Sunday, saying they came from a man who was "clearly in the last throes of his political career."
On Friday, Obama broke his silence on the shooting of the unarmed African-American teenager in Florida, a case that has launched a national movement.
"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said, underscoring how the issue affected him on a personal level. "I think [Trayvon's parents] are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened."
Gingrich took exception with Obama's comments during a radio interview later on Friday, saying they were "disgraceful."
"It's not a question of who that young man looked like," he said. "Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified, no matter what the ethnic background. Is the president suggesting that, if it had been a white who'd been shot, that would be OK, because it wouldn't look like him? That's just nonsense."
And I thought strawmanning in this thread was bad. This is strawmanning on a completely different planet! This type of comment might take trolling to a completely new level. I think Newt Gingrich has got to be one of the biggest inspirations for trolls in a long time.
Mitt Romney has made big promises to reform Washington, but his proposals have mostly lacked specifics. In a recently published interview with the conservative Weekly Standard, Romney explained why his promises to cut federal spending by slashing government programs and even whole agencies lack detail: it’s too politically risky.
“One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,” Romney told the magazine, recalling his 1994 run for Kennedy’s Senate seat.
It appears Romney doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice.
“So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we’ll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.”
As the Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes points out in his piece, this isn’t what conservatives are looking for in a candidate. “Romney’s answer goes a long way to explain why some conservatives have been reluctant to embrace his candidacy,” writes Hayes. “They want a list. They want it to be long, they want it to be detailed, and they want a candidate who is not only willing to provide one but eager to campaign on it.”
Romney touted the same gas mileage Obama ordered in vehicles while Governor in Massachusetts:
In his Climate Protection Plan of 2004, Romney and his transportation and environment czar Doug Foy (who, according to The New Republic would commute to work 20 miles by bike) put forward many strategies for combating climate change. These are strategies that if Romney supported them today, would make him the object of Republican ridicule.
One section deals with vehicle efficiency. See an excerpt from Romney's plan, below:
9. VEHICLES: SUPPORTING CLEAN, EFFICIENT NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Cars, buses, and trucks that are more fuel-efficient and/or use cleaner alternative fuels emit less CO2. The Plan features a wide range of strategies designed to encourage the demand for and sale of hybrid cars and other efficient clean vehicles. Action includes efforts to:
Provide incentives to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles
Support HOV lane access for clean vehicles
Implement stronger vehicle emissions standards
Promote the use of cleaner vehicles and fuels in public transit fleets
Clean up the existing transit fleet with less polluting fuels
Continue to promote the use of cleaner diesel equipment on state-funded construction projects
Eliminate unnecessary idling of buses
Use cleaner train engine technology to reduce diesel soot
Advocate for aircraft efficiency at a regional and national level
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
If you read into it, I suppose you could say that was what McCain implied. But then you could also paper over it in one of a variety of ways, such as saying that McCain was responding more to the fact that the "Arab" label implied something bad while there was nothing wrong with it, and that such a label was irrelevant to the election at large.
Either way, it's a hell of a lot more than what any of today's candidates have been willing to say.
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
The actual quote I believe is "I can't trust Obama, I have read about him, he's not...he's an Arab." To which McCain responds with said statement. The "he's a citizen" part is the reference to the arab part.
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
The woman's full statement to McCain was "I can't trust Obama. I have read about him, and he's not.. he's not... he's a uh he's an Arab."
She was implying he was some sort of non-citizen dissident, not just that he was Arabic (although to her they're probably synonymous).
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
The actual quote I believe is "I can't trust Obama, I have read about him, he's not...he's an Arab." To which McCain responds with said statement. The "he's a citizen" part is the reference to the arab part.
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
The actual quote I believe is "I can't trust Obama, I have read about him, he's not...he's an Arab." To which McCain responds with said statement. The "he's a citizen" part is the reference to the arab part.
I love the Breaking News: McCain: Obama not an Arab.
You may not remember much of the campaign, but that was actually a pretty big deal at the time. McCain could have simply evaded the the (obviously old and confused) woman or thrown out some glossy non-sense. Instead, he confronted one of the most pervasive and ugly attacks against Obama throughout the campaign - that Obama is some sort of "other," non citizen, or foreign inflitrator. It may be because this occurred as McCain's chances at winning seemed to dwindle, so he was starting to think of his legacy, but this was one of the most presidential moments for McCain throughout the campaign.
Democracy is dependent upon the notion of a good-faith opposition. Without candidates who mutually respect one another and respect the process, democracy cannot survive. It's the reason Hillary immediately started to support Obama once he got the nomination and later agreed to serve in his administration. It's the reason the losing candidate always gives a concession speech. You can't realistically hope to govern without the consent of the opposition. McCain understands this, and I think this is an attempt to legitimize Obama as a candidate in the eyes of Republican voters (while still hoping to win).
There are obvious things for us to be concerned about as viewers, namely that it may look like McCain is suggesting that Arabs cannot be decent men, but I don't think that's the intent. He's confronting a broader set of concerns among the some in voting public. The statement wasn't perfect, but I think few could have provided a better response in the heat of the moment at the tail end of a long campaign.
It's worth noting that all of the current Republican candidates are happy to play on fears of Obama's "otherness." It's difficult to see any of them handling a similar situation anywhere near as well as McCain did.
During the 2008 campaign, a woman asked GOP nominee John McCain a question and called Obama an “Arab.” McCain immediately corrected her, saying, “No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about.”
So the opposite of Arab is "a decent, family man, citizen"?
The actual quote I believe is "I can't trust Obama, I have read about him, he's not...he's an Arab." To which McCain responds with said statement. The "he's a citizen" part is the reference to the arab part.
I love the Breaking News: McCain: Obama not an Arab.
True... but has the question of whether or not he is from another planet been answered? I think not, the crazy cat lady (I thought she was that type when first saw this clip a whiles back) should ask about President Obamas' true origins from outer space.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i64/Orinoco_guy/Daily%20Kos/RepublicanLafferCurve.png)
