On November 14 2012 13:39 oneofthem wrote: if he was vice president at the time then sure say that. he was a congress guy. it doesn't change much.
So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic
The desire for the war came from the Executive. It would be bipartisan if both parties wanted it and you found people in both parties actively stumping for it. The Republicans, led by the Executive branch, sold it to the people; the Democrats weren't a part of that. They simply went along with it.
Hell, the Democrats had trouble even just getting the Republicans to debate whether or not to go to war.
Democrats are still complicit; they swept the house and senate in 2006 with a clear mandate to cut off funding for the Iraq war, which they didn't.
It only looks easy because you are sitting in your armchair judging them. It still wasn't long after the invasion, people were still angry about 9/11, bush was still president with all his neo-con national security team in place, the fighting was still raging. You can't just mess up a whole country and then exit while leaving in total ruin.
Bush screwed up on so many things, but the decision to go into iraq itself was so stupid, that alone leaves him as one of the worst modern presidents in history imo.
I'm not going to disagree on all of the things Bush screwed up on, but I wish people would quit turning a blind eye to all of the things that were really bad that Obama expanded on. Yes, we did eventually get out of Iraq, but who is to say we wouldn't have without Obama? He promised to get us out of Iraq in 16 months and it took nearly twice as long, as well as promised within 18 months that our troops would start coming home, and then more than tripled our presence there. So for these reasons I am going to remain skeptical on us actually getting out by 2014.
I wish people like you would stop blindly fearing legislated power. Bottom line, our government is extremely transparent and exercises the power you linked to with a great deal of restraint. That is because we still elect our officials. The other scenario would just include covert options to kill/detain people under the guise of some other "legal" means, like drugs.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, we were put on the track of withdrawal with Obama (or any elected Democrat, really). We don't have situations where we "don't let the enemy know when we're withdrawing." Also, he very well could have just pulled out every troop and piece of equipment, but then left us with the same foreign policy backlog/backlash we've been experiencing for 30 years now. By taking a stance of responsibly leaving a country we sent our troops to, we send a message, however faint, that we don't ONLY have our own interests at stake. Hopefully that will pay returns in the future.
And I wish people like you would stop forgiving unconstitutional legislated power. Just because it exercises their power with a great deal of restraint, that means you are ok with them having it?! You saying our government is extremely transparent is patently false as well.
You think a "responsible withdrawal" is going to mitigate the damage that has already been done? I don't think a faint message is worth spending additional YEARS over there. Also, as far as I have read there is no actual plan for this withdrawal, only a deadline for removing troops involved in the combat missions. Nothing for the "support" missions. Also, apparently the pentagon is trying to strike a deal with the Afghan government to leave 25,000 troops until 2024
On November 14 2012 13:39 oneofthem wrote: if he was vice president at the time then sure say that. he was a congress guy. it doesn't change much.
So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic
The desire for the war came from the Executive. It would be bipartisan if both parties wanted it and you found people in both parties actively stumping for it. The Republicans, led by the Executive branch, sold it to the people; the Democrats weren't a part of that. They simply went along with it.
Hell, the Democrats had trouble even just getting the Republicans to debate whether or not to go to war.
Democrats are still complicit; they swept the house and senate in 2006 with a clear mandate to cut off funding for the Iraq war, which they didn't.
It only looks easy because you are sitting in your armchair judging them. It still wasn't long after the invasion, people were still angry about 9/11, bush was still president with all his neo-con national security team in place, the fighting was still raging. You can't just mess up a whole country and then exit while leaving in total ruin.
Bush screwed up on so many things, but the decision to go into iraq itself was so stupid, that alone leaves him as one of the worst modern presidents in history imo.
I'm not going to disagree on all of the things Bush screwed up on, but I wish people would quit turning a blind eye to all of the things that were really bad that Obama expanded on. Yes, we did eventually get out of Iraq, but who is to say we wouldn't have without Obama? He promised to get us out of Iraq in 16 months and it took nearly twice as long, as well as promised within 18 months that our troops would start coming home, and then more than tripled our presence there. So for these reasons I am going to remain skeptical on us actually getting out by 2014.
I wish people like you would stop blindly fearing legislated power. Bottom line, our government is extremely transparent and exercises the power you linked to with a great deal of restraint. That is because we still elect our officials. The other scenario would just include covert options to kill/detain people under the guise of some other "legal" means, like drugs.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, we were put on the track of withdrawal with Obama (or any elected Democrat, really). We don't have situations where we "don't let the enemy know when we're withdrawing." Also, he very well could have just pulled out every troop and piece of equipment, but then left us with the same foreign policy backlog/backlash we've been experiencing for 30 years now. By taking a stance of responsibly leaving a country we sent our troops to, we send a message, however faint, that we don't ONLY have our own interests at stake. Hopefully that will pay returns in the future.
And I wish people like you would stop forgiving unconstitutional legislated power. Just because it exercises their power with a great deal of restraint, that means you are ok with them having it?! You saying our government is extremely transparent is patently false as well.
You think a "responsible withdrawal" is going to mitigate the damage that has already been done? I don't think a faint message is worth spending additional YEARS over there. Also, as far as I have read there is no actual plan for this withdrawal, only a deadline for removing troops involved in the combat missions. Nothing for the "support" missions. Also, apparently the pentagon is trying to strike a deal with the Afghan government to leave 25,000 troops until 2024
And as was the case in Iraq, this does not mean the troops on support missions are out of harms way. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it: "So while the troops will be "non-combat," they will still be engaged in "targeted counterterrorism operations" and working and fighting alongside Iraqi forces"
On November 14 2012 13:39 oneofthem wrote: if he was vice president at the time then sure say that. he was a congress guy. it doesn't change much.
So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic
The desire for the war came from the Executive. It would be bipartisan if both parties wanted it and you found people in both parties actively stumping for it. The Republicans, led by the Executive branch, sold it to the people; the Democrats weren't a part of that. They simply went along with it.
Hell, the Democrats had trouble even just getting the Republicans to debate whether or not to go to war.
Democrats are still complicit; they swept the house and senate in 2006 with a clear mandate to cut off funding for the Iraq war, which they didn't.
It only looks easy because you are sitting in your armchair judging them. It still wasn't long after the invasion, people were still angry about 9/11, bush was still president with all his neo-con national security team in place, the fighting was still raging. You can't just mess up a whole country and then exit while leaving in total ruin.
Bush screwed up on so many things, but the decision to go into iraq itself was so stupid, that alone leaves him as one of the worst modern presidents in history imo.
I'm not going to disagree on all of the things Bush screwed up on, but I wish people would quit turning a blind eye to all of the things that were really bad that Obama expanded on. Yes, we did eventually get out of Iraq, but who is to say we wouldn't have without Obama? He promised to get us out of Iraq in 16 months and it took nearly twice as long, as well as promised within 18 months that our troops would start coming home, and then more than tripled our presence there. So for these reasons I am going to remain skeptical on us actually getting out by 2014.
I wish people like you would stop blindly fearing legislated power. Bottom line, our government is extremely transparent and exercises the power you linked to with a great deal of restraint. That is because we still elect our officials. The other scenario would just include covert options to kill/detain people under the guise of some other "legal" means, like drugs.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, we were put on the track of withdrawal with Obama (or any elected Democrat, really). We don't have situations where we "don't let the enemy know when we're withdrawing." Also, he very well could have just pulled out every troop and piece of equipment, but then left us with the same foreign policy backlog/backlash we've been experiencing for 30 years now. By taking a stance of responsibly leaving a country we sent our troops to, we send a message, however faint, that we don't ONLY have our own interests at stake. Hopefully that will pay returns in the future.
And I wish people like you would stop forgiving unconstitutional legislated power. Just because it exercises their power with a great deal of restraint, that means you are ok with them having it?! You saying our government is extremely transparent is patently false as well.
You think a "responsible withdrawal" is going to mitigate the damage that has already been done? I don't think a faint message is worth spending additional YEARS over there. Also, as far as I have read there is no actual plan for this withdrawal, only a deadline for removing troops involved in the combat missions. Nothing for the "support" missions. Also, apparently the pentagon is trying to strike a deal with the Afghan government to leave 25,000 troops until 2024
And as was the case in Iraq, this does not mean the troops on support missions are out of harms way. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it: "So while the troops will be "non-combat," they will still be engaged in "targeted counterterrorism operations" and working and fighting alongside Iraqi forces"
Need more sources?
Nothing in any of your "sources" says anything about leaving troops in Afghanistan until 2024. Please stop spreading lies.
And your original 2024 source is nothing but speculation and rumors of talk behind closed doors.
So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic
The desire for the war came from the Executive. It would be bipartisan if both parties wanted it and you found people in both parties actively stumping for it. The Republicans, led by the Executive branch, sold it to the people; the Democrats weren't a part of that. They simply went along with it.
Hell, the Democrats had trouble even just getting the Republicans to debate whether or not to go to war.
Democrats are still complicit; they swept the house and senate in 2006 with a clear mandate to cut off funding for the Iraq war, which they didn't.
It only looks easy because you are sitting in your armchair judging them. It still wasn't long after the invasion, people were still angry about 9/11, bush was still president with all his neo-con national security team in place, the fighting was still raging. You can't just mess up a whole country and then exit while leaving in total ruin.
Bush screwed up on so many things, but the decision to go into iraq itself was so stupid, that alone leaves him as one of the worst modern presidents in history imo.
I'm not going to disagree on all of the things Bush screwed up on, but I wish people would quit turning a blind eye to all of the things that were really bad that Obama expanded on. Yes, we did eventually get out of Iraq, but who is to say we wouldn't have without Obama? He promised to get us out of Iraq in 16 months and it took nearly twice as long, as well as promised within 18 months that our troops would start coming home, and then more than tripled our presence there. So for these reasons I am going to remain skeptical on us actually getting out by 2014.
I wish people like you would stop blindly fearing legislated power. Bottom line, our government is extremely transparent and exercises the power you linked to with a great deal of restraint. That is because we still elect our officials. The other scenario would just include covert options to kill/detain people under the guise of some other "legal" means, like drugs.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, we were put on the track of withdrawal with Obama (or any elected Democrat, really). We don't have situations where we "don't let the enemy know when we're withdrawing." Also, he very well could have just pulled out every troop and piece of equipment, but then left us with the same foreign policy backlog/backlash we've been experiencing for 30 years now. By taking a stance of responsibly leaving a country we sent our troops to, we send a message, however faint, that we don't ONLY have our own interests at stake. Hopefully that will pay returns in the future.
And I wish people like you would stop forgiving unconstitutional legislated power. Just because it exercises their power with a great deal of restraint, that means you are ok with them having it?! You saying our government is extremely transparent is patently false as well.
You think a "responsible withdrawal" is going to mitigate the damage that has already been done? I don't think a faint message is worth spending additional YEARS over there. Also, as far as I have read there is no actual plan for this withdrawal, only a deadline for removing troops involved in the combat missions. Nothing for the "support" missions. Also, apparently the pentagon is trying to strike a deal with the Afghan government to leave 25,000 troops until 2024
And as was the case in Iraq, this does not mean the troops on support missions are out of harms way. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it: "So while the troops will be "non-combat," they will still be engaged in "targeted counterterrorism operations" and working and fighting alongside Iraqi forces"
Need more sources?
Nothing in any of your "sources" says anything about leaving troops in Afghanistan until 2024. Please stop spreading lies.
And your original 2024 source is nothing but speculation and rumors of talk behind closed doors.
"American military officials say that the planning figure is 25,000 troops, commanded by a three-star general. They would include trainers as well as thousands of Green Berets and other special operations troops who would work with Afghans on counter-terror missions. NATO would be asked to contribute troops, but it's likely that the U.S. would contribute the bulk of those forces."
The only thing speculative is the number 25,000, this could change, but there is definitely talks of leaving troops behind.
On November 14 2012 18:14 Souma wrote: Hm I thought it was already known that we'd be leaving troops behind in Afghanistan to work "behind the scenes" so-to-speak.
It's definitely not something that gets talked about alot, not too optimistic about our foreign policy if we actually have to keep troops over there for at least 2 decades just so we don't "leave a mess"....
Granted our foreign policy has never been much to brag about in recent times, but I would prefer we leave at least some troops to ease the transition. We destroyed a lot of homes, killed a lot of innocents, and turned the country upside down - the least we can do is make sure the incredible sacrifices made by both sides are not in vain. It's even worse foreign policy to hit and run.
On November 14 2012 18:30 Souma wrote: Granted our foreign policy has never been much to brag about in recent times, but I would prefer we leave at least some troops to ease the transition. We destroyed a lot of homes, killed a lot of innocents, and turned the country upside down - the least we can do is make sure the incredible sacrifices made by both sides are not in vain. It's even worse foreign policy to hit and run.
Well when should the WHOLE process be done? I mean we can't stay there forever..
On November 14 2012 18:30 Souma wrote: Granted our foreign policy has never been much to brag about in recent times, but I would prefer we leave at least some troops to ease the transition. We destroyed a lot of homes, killed a lot of innocents, and turned the country upside down - the least we can do is make sure the incredible sacrifices made by both sides are not in vain. It's even worse foreign policy to hit and run.
Well when should the WHOLE process be done? I mean we can't stay there forever..
That's not a question I'm qualified to answer. I trust our joint chiefs.
On November 14 2012 18:30 Souma wrote: Granted our foreign policy has never been much to brag about in recent times, but I would prefer we leave at least some troops to ease the transition. We destroyed a lot of homes, killed a lot of innocents, and turned the country upside down - the least we can do is make sure the incredible sacrifices made by both sides are not in vain. It's even worse foreign policy to hit and run.
Well when should the WHOLE process be done? I mean we can't stay there forever..
We're still in germany, japan, and korea. I don't like it one bit, but it doesn't look like we can fully get out any time soon.
We're in those countries for quite different reasons (but really, we need to scale down those troops). All things considered though, I wouldn't be surprised if we found reason to set up shop in Afghanistan for an extended period of time.
On November 14 2012 18:49 Souma wrote: We're in those countries for quite different reasons (but really, we need to scale down those troops). All things considered though, I wouldn't be surprised if we found reason to set up shop in Afghanistan for an extended period of time.
That is so depressing..I just wish more people knew about these things.
On November 14 2012 18:49 Souma wrote: We're in those countries for quite different reasons (but really, we need to scale down those troops). All things considered though, I wouldn't be surprised if we found reason to set up shop in Afghanistan for an extended period of time.
Well.. Setting up Shop in Afghanistan would probably make more sense than in Germany.
On November 14 2012 09:54 farvacola wrote: I'm not sure how I did not come across this video during the election, so if its a repost, I apologize. I just can't believe this man had a legitimate shot at becoming president.
Ho fuck, Mitt Romney liked Twilight, he thinks it was "fun". Do you actually think it's true or does he said that to please the most retarded of its elector I wonder. You can ask a little education and culture from your politicians, the twilight series is full of dangerous (yeah dangerous) metaphore about the couple and the relation between genders that I can't believe someone actually says casually that he "likes" it.
On November 14 2012 14:19 oneofthem wrote: a modern monetary theory take on the deficit.
basically the idea is that by controlling the issuance of currency the government in effect owns the whole gig and can run the deficit as basically a valve on the economy, releasing or putting in pressure as needed.
i'd say they face some problems at teh external margin, people coming in and out of the dollar, going in and out of commodity/assets vs real economy. it's probably never implementable in the short term never, because of how shocking to common sensibility it all is.
It's 2 hour long and not really entertaining so I didn't watch it a lot but do they actually talk about international saving transfert from asian and developing countries (and even Germany to some extent) or do they only talk about the US side of things. Because I can't take seriously any explication on the current debt in the US but also in Europe if it does not take into consideration the under developped finance sector and middle class in those countries that provoque an irregular accumulation of capital and reduce the opportunities for investment and explain a lot on the current flow of savings from those countries to the developped countries.
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
how do you differentiate conservatives? Are you only speaking on fiscal conservatism or do you include social conservatism?
Fiscal conservatism with respect to the Federal government; I believe that social policy should be decided by each State as per the Constitution, with the Supreme Court getting involved to right injustices caused by majorities on minorities (anti-miscegenation, anti-gay marriage, etc). Social liberalism / conservatism at the Federal level is a huge distraction, as neither party has much ability to do anything for or against any particular issue. Aint nobody got time for that.
On November 14 2012 11:56 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:
On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote: if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous
Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. However, I will take exception with you throwing the wars in the mix; both had bipartisan support. Welfare is quite a bit more than "a couple % of gdp," in case you did not know.
Al Gore would have never invaded Iraq. He probably also wouldnt have jacked up the DoD spending from the Clinton high of 300 billion to a Bush high of 700 billion at which Obama kept it for the last 4 years.
The Iraq War was a bipartisan effort, Al Gore would not have had a choice. DoD spending is up because we are in wars, lol...
The States right argument is BS and can be associated with the southern strategy.
On November 14 2012 13:39 oneofthem wrote: if he was vice president at the time then sure say that. he was a congress guy. it doesn't change much.
So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic
an executive branch driven war is very hard to be bipartisan, especially whne you understand the left's opposition to the war from the very beginning.
I have to ask, and this is a serious question, why are we still in Afghanistan after Democratic re-election then? This is something I am not very knowledgeable on. Back in 2003 I was only 14 when the Iraq war started and was brainwashed into thinking it was the right move. As I got older I changed my stance on a lot of things (now pro-gay marriage, anti-war, anti-war on drugs) and since I joined the military (2008) I realized just how terrible of a move it was to go to war in the first place and was actually excited about Obama's promise to get us out. What I never understood was why he didn't. Is it the Republicans not letting him, or is there something about his own foreign policy that is keeping us there?
Pragmatism. In theory, Obama could fly single American out of Iraq and Afghanistan in the next week. However, there would a massive shitshow-- they have to remove a bunch of equipment and sensitive documents, make sure the natives can keep the peace and make sure there's smooth transfer of power and so forth. When you move out of a house you've lived in for years its not exactly an instantaneous process.
First of all, why do they have to make sure the natives can keep the peace? Second of all, how is our presence going to help this? Third of all, I can understand it taking a few weeks, or at most a few months, but last time I checked it doesn't take years to remove equipment and sensitive documents...
Why do we have to make sure natives can keep the peace? Think about what it would look like to other countries around the world if we go into a country with our military, tear up the place, find their head of state and execute him, and then just pick up and leave. If we left without making sure the country doesn't fall into chaos and it ends up doing so, our reputation abroad would plummet.
And so why should we care what other countries think? Globalized economy, alliances vs common enemies, etc etc etc. Like it or not, even though were the strongest country in the world we still rely on other countries for so many things. If we look bad to other countries we might not get the cooperation we need for other foreign operations. Citizens of other countries might boycott our goods, might put pressure on their governments to not assist us, or whatever. There so many things to take into account, you cant just look at one issue as a standalone thing.
Sorry if I sound confrontational but I'm tired of seeing people just taking a single issue, isolating it and coming up with some "brilliant", yet simple solution to the entire problem. People in the White House and the Pentagon have years of experience dealing with this and get their information about the issues directly from the source of conflict. We have absolutely 0 experience in these matters and get our information filtered through secondary and tertiary sources that no doubt have their personal biases infused in them.
Of course we shouldn't just resign ourselves to ignorance and allow the government to do what they want without protest, but we should all try to employ more critical thinking to these matters
On November 14 2012 13:39 oneofthem wrote: if he was vice president at the time then sure say that. he was a congress guy. it doesn't change much.
So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic
an executive branch driven war is very hard to be bipartisan, especially whne you understand the left's opposition to the war from the very beginning.
I have to ask, and this is a serious question, why are we still in Afghanistan after Democratic re-election then? This is something I am not very knowledgeable on. Back in 2003 I was only 14 when the Iraq war started and was brainwashed into thinking it was the right move. As I got older I changed my stance on a lot of things (now pro-gay marriage, anti-war, anti-war on drugs) and since I joined the military (2008) I realized just how terrible of a move it was to go to war in the first place and was actually excited about Obama's promise to get us out. What I never understood was why he didn't. Is it the Republicans not letting him, or is there something about his own foreign policy that is keeping us there?
Pragmatism. In theory, Obama could fly single American out of Iraq and Afghanistan in the next week. However, there would a massive shitshow-- they have to remove a bunch of equipment and sensitive documents, make sure the natives can keep the peace and make sure there's smooth transfer of power and so forth. When you move out of a house you've lived in for years its not exactly an instantaneous process.
First of all, why do they have to make sure the natives can keep the peace? Second of all, how is our presence going to help this? Third of all, I can understand it taking a few weeks, or at most a few months, but last time I checked it doesn't take years to remove equipment and sensitive documents...
because.. we broke their goddamn country in the first place? Seems a wee bit irresponsible to not at least help the new government that we put in place take care of their own people you know.
Our presence is supposed to help train their troops and protect the people during this less-than-perfect time. We don't need the full hundreds of thousands of troops there, a fraction will do.
You seriously can't be so selfish to think that after we ravage a country and install a government, that we would leave that same government and the confused civilians at the mercy of the exact same people we attacked?
On November 14 2012 13:39 oneofthem wrote: if he was vice president at the time then sure say that. he was a congress guy. it doesn't change much.
So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic
an executive branch driven war is very hard to be bipartisan, especially whne you understand the left's opposition to the war from the very beginning.
I have to ask, and this is a serious question, why are we still in Afghanistan after Democratic re-election then? This is something I am not very knowledgeable on. Back in 2003 I was only 14 when the Iraq war started and was brainwashed into thinking it was the right move. As I got older I changed my stance on a lot of things (now pro-gay marriage, anti-war, anti-war on drugs) and since I joined the military (2008) I realized just how terrible of a move it was to go to war in the first place and was actually excited about Obama's promise to get us out. What I never understood was why he didn't. Is it the Republicans not letting him, or is there something about his own foreign policy that is keeping us there?
Pragmatism. In theory, Obama could fly single American out of Iraq and Afghanistan in the next week. However, there would a massive shitshow-- they have to remove a bunch of equipment and sensitive documents, make sure the natives can keep the peace and make sure there's smooth transfer of power and so forth. When you move out of a house you've lived in for years its not exactly an instantaneous process.
First of all, why do they have to make sure the natives can keep the peace? Second of all, how is our presence going to help this? Third of all, I can understand it taking a few weeks, or at most a few months, but last time I checked it doesn't take years to remove equipment and sensitive documents...
because.. we broke their goddamn country in the first place? Seems a wee bit irresponsible to not at least help the new government that we put in place take care of their own people you know.
Our presence is supposed to help train their troops and protect the people during this less-than-perfect time. We don't need the full hundreds of thousands of troops there, a fraction will do.
You seriously can't be so selfish to think that after we ravage a country and install a government, that we would leave that same government and the confused civilians at the mercy of the exact same people we attacked?
America can't handle another Vietnam pull leaving countless thousands to die. For the first time in decades the US really has the major support globally and they're moving towards that goal and not saying "We're gonna get dem Iraqi's cause dem WMD's that aren't there".
So yeah, definitely a good idea to follow a path to restore the fuck up then lealve it behind and they have global approval which is a big deal.
On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote: Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. After all, Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then.
Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic. And what should we do about it? Another tax cut.
Spending your way out of debt makes about as much sense as putting out a fire with gasoline in my book. Tax cuts make more sense to me. Give money back to the people so they can invest it in business. This is why I tend to side more with the Republicans than Democrats even though I am neither.
On November 12 2012 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 12 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:
On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote: Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then.
Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic, and what should we do about it? Another tax cut.
that is a misunderstanding of how taxes work, and also betrays the inner feeling you have. it's not about fixing the economy, it's about punishing the rich.
Republicans want to cut spending and simplify the tax-code, then cut taxes to spur economic growth. Democrats just want to raise the debt ceiling again, and again, and again, and again. ignoring the clear fact that the rich will pass any tax off onto the poor.
Of course it's not surprising that the party of anti-intellectuals is ignoring the evidence.
Kmillz, you talk about reducing the debt. And how are tax cuts going to reduce the debt? If you're serious about reducing the debt above all else, why don't you call for spending cuts and tax increases? Why don't you embrace the fiscal cliff?
That CRS report is fairly useless. You can't take one thing, be it highest tax rates or education spend or whatever, and see if it has a noticeable effect on the overall economy. Its just too minor to make a noticeable difference. I don't know why you insist on being anti-intellectual and arguing otherwise.
The data points for the Top Marginal Tax Rate used in the report are from about 30% to 90%. If you're saying that even such a wide range of rates makes no difference to growth, then why not raise it back up to 90%? After all, it makes no difference to growth, but it would be good for revenues.
Between 1945 and 2010 more change occurred in the US economy than the highest tax rates.
For example, during the same period that top tax rates were generally declining, government spending was increasing. + Show Spoiler +
And its only in recent years that tax revenues have declined.
So let's complete the picture. Top tax rates do not affect economic growth nor does government spending nor do top tax rates affect government revenue.
Now, I don't have the data to prove this but my intuition tells me that such an analysis (drawing trend lines and extrapolating conclusions) is at best, flaky, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
But if you look in Table A-1, you'll see that the change in government spending is accounted for in the model. And there is no significant effect, which is obvious since government spending is only expansionary in a recession or if it improves the capacity for long run growth. Many economists support the methodology and conclusion of the report.
The fact remains there isn't much evidence that tax cuts lead to large long run economic growth. The top marginal tax rate was around 90% in the 50s, yet that didn't stop massive economic growth. When Clinton raised taxes, that didn't tank the economy. And as I'll show below, the magical economic effects of tax cuts are mostly bogus.
You quote an EY study which argues that tax increases are bad for economic growth:
On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote: Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon".
A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental. [...] Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected. [...] In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront.
You can only nay-say Krugman as a source so many times before your lack of credible, opposing source material makes it look like it is only you with the political lens on. When you say stuff like "He's playing politics because he wants winner take all economics talks.", you are presuming a lack of economic utility in holding Republican feet to the fire in order to get an economic mandate across, when this is clearly not the case, at least not entirely. In this case specifically, the recommendation of economic brinkmanship is Krugman saying that making concessions is economically a poor choice, in addition to being politically malfeasant. If you think otherwise, prove it, instead of simply saying that it is so.
Some think that Reps are right and that increasing taxes will hurt the economy: Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013Link
Overall, this study finds that the higher tax rates would reduce output in the long-run by 1.3% when the proceeds are used to finance additional government spending. Employment would fall by 0.5%. In today‟s economy these changes would translate into a decline in GDP of $200 billion and employment by roughly 710,000 jobs. Investment, the capital stock (net worth) and real after-tax wages would also fall...
These results may suggest to policy makers that allowing the top tax rates to increase comes with economic consequences. Long-run output can be expected to fall, and, depending on the use of the revenues, living standards, as reflected by workers‟ real after-tax wages, may also be lower.
But I guess we should dismiss the other side and refuse to compromise because that would be the "intellectual" thing to do?
More specifically, this EY report claims that increasing taxes to finance additional government spending will reduce economic output in the long run. But there are many problems here. (Note: Everything that I talk about below applies in the long run, which is the opposite of what should happen in the short run, since in the short run we are in a depressed economy.)
Firstly, no one is suggesting that taxes should be increased to pay for additional spending. Taxes should be increased to reduce the deficit in the long run. Of course increasing government spending in the long run will tend to reduce output because of crowding out effects. When the economy has recovered, government spending can crowd out private spending, and tends to increase interest rates, which reduces output.
Secondly, the study ignores the fact that government spending can improve productive capacity, e.g. through research, education, infrastructure, etc. These government investments increase long run output. Reading Appendix A, the role of government in their model is only to redistribute income. While I do not expect such effects to be quantified as that would be very difficult, to disregard the good that government spending can do to boost capacity is a poor omission from the author.
Thirdly, and this is the most important point, the CBO disagrees. It finds that hitting the fiscal cliff will eventually increase output in the long run compared to backing off the fiscal cliff by extending unsustainable current tax and spending policies. The CBO argues that in the long run, increasing taxes reduces the deficit, which reduces the extend to which government spending crowds out private spending. The EY report seems to disregard the fact that tax increases have positive effects through reducing the deficit in the long run, which reduces crowding out and the other deleterious long run effects of high deficits.
Moreover, if the fiscal tightening was removed and the policies that are currently in effect were kept in place indefinitely, a continued surge in federal debt during the rest of this decade and beyond would raise the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which the government would lose the ability to borrow money at affordable interest rates) and would eventually reduce the nation’s output and income below what would occur if the fiscal tightening was allowed to take place as currently set by law. [...] For example, if the economy has idle resources, as it does now, government funding for projects can lead to the hiring of otherwise unemployed workers. The additional spending by those workers, who would have more income, would constitute a positive indirect effect. In contrast, a substantial increase in government spending financed by borrowing tends to drive up interest rates, which discourages spending on investment and on durable goods by raising the cost of borrowed funds. Those indirect “crowding-out” effects would offset some of the direct effects.
Lastly, the EY reasons that according to its model, increasing taxes reduces output due to reduced incentive to work. This is the primary justification for its findings. It writes:
These results can best be understood by considering how the higher tax rates affect the after-tax reward to work and the after-tax return to savings and investment and the disposable incomes of households. The higher tax rates make work less attractive as compared to leisure, thereby reducing labor supply. At the same time, the lower after-tax returns to saving and investment make current consumption more attractive and make investment in the United States less attractive. The increase in taxes also reduces disposable incomes, which reduces households‟ desire to consume more leisure.
But this paper from The Hamilton Project (which is part of the Brookings Institute), looked at the results of 23 studies, and by using the elasticity of labor supply with respect to changes in tax rates estimated in these studies, it says that "Tax cuts have relatively small effects on the amounts people work." (Figure 11 on Page 16).
In fact, this is a paper about tax policy in general. It further argues that tax cuts massively blow up the deficit instead of increasing income, and that deficit-financed tax cuts, like the Bush tax cuts, do not increase long run output, as explained below:
9. Cutting individual income tax rates would modestly increase the earnings of the typical American family while substantially increasing the federal budget deficit.
Figure 11 uses the economic evidence from twenty-three published studies cited in Chetty (2011) to illustrate how a 10 percent cut in individual income tax rates might increase the pretax earnings of the typical tax-paying family earning about $70,000 per year. Most studies find that such a tax cut would have essentially no effect on employment or earnings. The average estimate of all twenty-three studies predicts that the typical family would increase pretax earnings by roughly $450, or 0.7 percent. Even using the highest estimated response, the increase in earnings is about $1,500, or about 2.2 percent.
10. Deficit-financed tax cuts do not spur economic growth in the long run.
But historical tax cuts are also frequently said to have been motivated by a desire to spur economic activity by encouraging increased savings, investment, entrepreneurship, and other activities that contribute to long-term growth. While the evidence suggests that temporary tax cuts can help combat recessions—temporary tax cuts were an important part of the policy response to the Great Recession—the available estimates of how taxes affect the larger economy suggest that in normal economic times any potential long-run gains from lower tax rates are largely offset if they increase the deficit. Instead of increasing saving and investment, tax cuts that result in higher government borrowing reduce funds available to invest in the private sector, reducing growth.
Indeed, the best available estimates suggest that the tax cuts enacted a decade ago likely reduced economic growth in subsequent years. For instance, the CBO estimated the macroeconomic effects of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which reduced revenues by more than $200 billion per year (CBPP 2011).
So no, tax cuts do not tend to increase long run growth. Tax increases do not tend to decrease long run growth.
And Republicans, particularly kmillz and sc2superfan101, should stop ignoring the evidence and taking it as an article of faith that tax cuts are good and tax increases are bad. And, yes, the way that they haven't even bothered to engage in a serious discussion, instead just dismissing evidence that contradicts their faith-based belief in supply-side economics and the magic power of tax cuts, does make them anti-intellectuals.
Finally, the hypocrisy of Republicans who claim to be concerned about the deficit, while pushing for tax cuts and demand that taxes never be raised, is utterly breathtaking.
On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote: Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon".
A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental. [...] Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected. [...] In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront.
On one hand there's Fox News and the Republican party, this is the gang of anti-intellectuals who completely ignored all the polling evidence that Romney was going to lose, and were genuinely and utterly shocked when he got destroyed in the election. Maybe that poll taken on November 6 was biased with too many Democrats? These are the people who believe in supply-side economics, dismiss climate science as a massive hoax and believe in creationism, instead of evolution.
On the other hand, there's Paul Krugman, a Princeton professor and Nobel Prize winner, and someone who has managed to get most things right.
And I don't just get my news and economics from Krugman, I frequently read several news sources and economics blogs, but I make no apology and have no shame in admitting that I take what a real economist and academics says about economics quite seriously.
EPT
