In case anyone thought racism in America was dead . . .

[Rich]

Do you have any valid reference to support this statement?

Which hypothesis in general do you disagree with? What facts do you have to counter them?

The graph above

 

[georgedwilkinson]

The chart is basically useless and doesn't support any of your assertions. If I read it right, unemployment under Ford, a Republican, went the exact same direction as unemployment under Kennedy, a Democrat. And the direction of the lines under Carter and Johnson, both Democrats, went exactly the opposite direction. And it went both directions under Clinton. Does that mean that Clinton was good (Democrat in Rich terms) during part of his Presidency and bad (Republican in Rich terms) for the other part?

Fact is, unemployment has little to do with who is President. It is cyclical.

So, what is your proof for your outrageous assertions above?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

So giving poor people a handout, like decent public schools and affordable health care, makes them dependent, but giving wealthy people and corporations a handout, like billions of dollars in tax cuts, or just 700 billion dollars period, is just good economic policy?

Don't put words in my mouth. BOTH are lousy economic policy. Were it left to me, I would investigate the fat cats whose policies cause this, and where legal wrongdoing was discovered I would have them arrested, charged, tried, and (hopefully) convicted. Once they were convicted, shareholders would be able to sue the fat cats for recovery of ill-gotten gains.

The 700 Billion isn't going to the fat cats, though. It is going to the bank safes so they will have enough money to make more loans.

Personally, chaos be damned, I'd just as soon force the banks to collapse.

 

[Alisa]

Banana, my response wasn't to you specifically, I was talking about the hypocrisy of the "republican" or "conservative: economic idealogy.
dk, you are talking about handouts to grown people, which is not what I was talking about at all. If you look back at my posts, I am talking about how basic things like education and health care are considered "handouts" when you give them to poor people, but when you give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to rich people, that is not seen as a handout. The problem with your little story is that it doesn't represent what is actually going on in our tax system, which is that the massive tax breaks given to the most wealthy people and corporations in our country makes it so that they are effectively paying a lower tax RATE than those of us who work for a living. Under a progressive tax system, which is what we believe in in this country, that is a complete scam.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I'm not disagreeing with anything you have said but I'd like to ask a semi-rhetorical question.

Is taking less money forcibly away from someone than you normally would considered a hand-out?

I have a really wierd opinion on this, being a conservative. I believe it is good to take (some) money away from the rich and give it to the poor (even though some of the poor don't deserve it). My (il)logic is that if you don't do that, the rich will end up owning everything in a short amount of time and the middle class will disappear. Being a member of the middle class, I don't like the chances of becoming either very rich or very poor. Since a very few people seem to end up with all the money, I fear I wouldn't somehow magically end up in that select few.

As far as giving tax cuts (i.e. taking less money forcibly from people), I think there are solid mathematical reasons for it. If the rich man (which I've admitted most people aren't) has more money than normal after the tax break, his natural tendency (as a prodigious accumulator of wealth) is going to be to try to use his new-found windfall to get even more. When he invests his windfall in bonds, stocks, employees, equipment, advertising, or whatever he feels will make him money, he is helping the economy and the general welfare. More small businesses can start or continue to stay in business, etc. etc. And those businesses and their employees will have more income that can be taxed. And they will be able to spend more money with more businesses, causing a cycle that can maximize the impact to the economy and the total tax revenues.

Many economists on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that there is a perfect tax rate that encourages investment enough and collects the maximum revenue (based on Art Laffer's curve). For instance, if the rich guy gets a tax break, he may use his windfall (as mentioned previously) to make more money and that new windfall will be
taxable. Economists just don't agree on where that perfect tax rate lies and how the tax responsiblity should be divvied up. Nor do they agree on the need for a balanced budget all the time, though most (on both sides of the aisle) seem to believe it is a trivial part of the equation except during the very best economic times.

 

[Banana]

Banana, my response wasn't to you specifically, I was talking about the hypocrisy of the "republican" or "conservative: economic idealogy.

Maybe not, but it does no good to make a strawman, does it?

Under a progressive tax system, which is what we believe in in this country

Um, count me out from that country.

There's nothing progressive about taxing people, whether by progressive taxation, national sales tax, or a witches' brew. and as I've argued, it only creates perverse incentives as dk illustrated in his little story and fatally breaks the supply/demand and destroy any economic rationality.

Is taking less money forcibly away from someone than you normally would considered a hand-out?

Would you feel any better if the thief ran away with only the tires rather than the whole car?

The unfortunate upshot of this is yes, it can be considered a handout in that it creates a perverse incentive for people (whether they are the beneficiary or not).

I've heard of arguments where there is much more economic benefits to giving rich tax cuts for everyone because as you pointed out, they do more in terms of re-investing the money compared to the lower brackets who may choose to consume more than usual.

But it doesn't change the fact that taxation breaks supply/demand and removes any rationality, which is why we usually see boatload of money being sunk into nothingness. Indeed, it has been argued that the bureaucrats consumes the tax money, rather than investing the money (even if that was the expected result).

Finally, does it makes any sense that rich receive more benefits and attention in the government? Most would say no, but yet the progressive taxation will support just that! The fact is that everyone, poor or rich, all benefits or suffer equally under a government and therefore the costs to run the government should be equal among people, even if people may not be equal in terms of income. Of course, my idea of government would be so small that it'd run on pennies, with everything else being privatized.

Art Laffer...

Take a looky at this. I don't know what they said word for word as I was going off the gist given by someone else, but hopefully you'll like it.

That was back in 2006.

 

[Rich]

Fact is, unemployment has little to do with who is President. It is cyclical.

So are presidential elections, what's your point?

So, what is your proof for your outrageous assertions above

follow the graph

 

[Rich]

Would you feel any better if the thief ran away with only the tires rather than the whole car?

Yes, of course

 

[Banana]

For the coming week, Rasmussen will weight national polls with 39.3% Democrats, 33.3% Republicans, and 27.4% independents. These numbers come from 21,000 interviews done during the past 6 weeks. The partisan breakdown is important because self-identifying Democrats and Republicans vote overwhelmingly for their party. In fact, they can't believe anything bad about their party. Rasmussen took a poll asking who won the Vice-Presidential debate and Obama supporters gave the nod to Biden by 81% to 3%. McCain supporters thought Palin won, 76% to 5%. Were they watching the same debate? The CBS poll of undecided voters said Biden won 46% to 21%. The CNN poll gave it to Biden 51% to 36%. The country is so polarized that it is apparently impossible for a McCain supporter to say: "Biden is a much more experienced debater than Palin so he naturally won the debate. By the same token, McCain is a much more experienced candidate than Obama, so I am voting for him." The model is: my party, right or wrong.

So... there.

We're screwed.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

So are presidential elections, what's your point?

follow the graph

The graph is useless and you never answered the questions. That graph has no legends or labels and stops before Bush took office, seemingly. And it doesn't prove your point about unemployment vs. who is in the White House. The reason it doesn't is not that it doesn't have legends and labels (which is convenient for you because you can say it means anything you want it to), it is because there is no correlation.

Where'd you get that graph, Ross Perot?

 

[georgedwilkinson]

So... there.

We're screwed.

So, we're all sheep, huh?

 

[dkinley]

Honestly, I don't even know why we have elections any more.

Here the press is deciding the election again. The only difference between this election and the last one is, I think they called it prior to any primary being held. So much for the journalism code of ethics. Just tell me who, what, where and when and let me decide for myself.

Case in point, the Hilary supporters were outraged because of the negative-to-positive reporting ratio between her and Obama. The outrage dried up when the same formula was applied to Dems vs. Repubs. That's a fine example of hypocrisy by the people, but it shouldn't allow the press a free pass - but yet it does.

-dK

 

[Banana]

So, we're all sheep, huh?

That's the conclusion it seems to be pointing toward.

It also is noteworthy that as late, elections increasingly has become close, and are decided in few states, by even narrower demographic of voters while at same time, the voting turnout has shrunk. Bush was elected by 50% of 30% of voting population... that's only 15%. Not that Kerry was any better, getting 15% himself as well.

There's a reason why 70% stay home: They've concluded, for better or worse, that their vote don't matter a damn. They are not that excited about either candidates, just don't care about the issues that has no relevance other than to aggravate their wallets. Not that I espouse apathy and think they're fools for staying home, but nobody can say they did it without any reasons.

Both parties has became a huge marketing corporation hawking their products so it's now a matter of choosing between Coke and Pepsi.

 

[Rich]

The graph is useless and you never answered the questions. That graph has no legends or labels and stops before Bush took office, seemingly. And it doesn't prove your point about unemployment vs. who is in the White House. The reason it doesn't is not that it doesn't have legends and labels (which is convenient for you because you can say it means anything you want it to), it is because there is no correlation.

Where'd you get that graph, Ross Perot?

Follow the trend line with one or two minor exceptions, unemployment up under the Republicans, down under the Democrats, of course there's no mention of the surplus that Bill left behind for Bush to fritter away either

 

[Rich]

So, we're all sheep, huh?

Only if you vote Republican........................

 

[Banana]

Only if you vote Republican........................

Thank you for proving my point. Here, some grass for you. Don't forget to say 'baa! baa!' now.

 

[Rich]

Thank you for proving my point. Here, some grass for you. Don't forget to say 'baa! baa!' now.

I don't vote for them therefore I have a more refined diet............

 

[dkinley]

Per the unemployment bit ... you could pull up plenty of opposing arguments in the same.

But first, I found the graph on a blog (This Life and Time) and the author took the numbers from the Civilian Labor Force. Hold .. I should say that the author claimed to have put all of this together. The rest of his blog is about movie scripts. This was the only statistical or political stuff that was on there.

Anyhow, this data set has been argued against in many conversations by economists. A token argument can be made that if government grew in that time period, of course the civilian labor force unemployment statistics will go down.

Per the author's written statement:

I averaged the rate of change in unemployment per year for each president and came up with these numbers

This does not account for people leaving or entering the workforce, so his data is skewed and not realistic.

In regards to cast a negative slant on economic policy, the author admits to not getting source information even though he makes a sweeping point about it later. ...

I quickly came to an answer by reading through Wikipedia (which I understand is probably not the best source of information but I am too lazy to go looking for any real documentation).

Too lazy to go looking for any real documentation? I'd say .. even for a real methodical approach.

At least the author had complete disclosure ...

Of course, and as obligatory adjunct, there is a lot of variables I did not consider that are very likely heavily involved in creating jobs in the US that aren't even related to the presidency or an economic model.

But he uses the words likely and aren't even related to dismiss his incomplete study. But that didn't stop the author from being the authority and offering his insight.

However, I think it is compelling data and shouldn't be taken too lightly when considering what president you plan to vote for in November, especially if you are going to be looking for a job anytime soon.

For noting purposes, the guy that wrote (or claiming to write it on that blog) is (as written in their profile) educated in microbiology and communications. This is probably why he didn't "consider that they [variables] are very likely heavily involved in creating jobs ...". I believe in rogue education and all, but this was the only paper or blog of sort this guy has posted. Just hard for me to believe he woke up with an epiphany and knew statistics.

-dK

 

[dkinley]

The problem with your little story is that it doesn't represent what is actually going on in our tax system, which is that the massive tax breaks given to the most wealthy people and corporations in our country makes it so that they are effectively paying a lower tax RATE than those of us who work for a living. Under a progressive tax system, which is what we believe in in this country, that is a complete scam.

Yeah?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html

... but when you give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to rich people, that is not seen as a handout.

In case you missed it, I've been against bailouts. But I won't go into the fact that the Dems had enough votes to pass it but wanted the Repubs to vote so they would be on the hook for it, too.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/09/29/bailout-marks-karl-marx-s-comeback.aspx

dk, you are talking about handouts to grown people, which is not what I was talking about at all. If you look back at my posts, I am talking about how basic things like education and health care are considered "handouts" when you give them to poor people...

Hmmmm. Really? Confusing.

The poorest get all of their income taxes paid back to them. Is that not a handout already? Have I spoken out about that? No. When I prepared taxes for many people, I would see people making 13k a year getting back returns in the $5k area. I will point out there is a huge difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction.

Now, if you want to talk about education. I have worked in EHS and HS fields. I've helped collate their data and the reports conclude that overall, it doesn't work. But you won't hear that - they will cry bleeding hearts to keep wasting money. In my opinion, they are nothing but a pyramid scheme of people getting rich by taking a moral high-road of helping the needy. These programs need massive overhauls if not obliteration and redesign.

For No Child Left Behind it should be called Children Held Back From Their Full Potential. It's like the "All Cs" Honor Role except everyone has to be there. C'mon, now parents have to pay extra to send their smarter child to a magnate program to realize their full potential; not keep them dull like their neighbors. The whole education bit is analogous to a socialized medicine program if you ask me.

Anyhow, NCLB needs to be done away with, vouchers given and let parents decide where they want their kids to go to school. The government can then take all of that subsidation money and dole it out to schools that don't rake as much in MILs for their funding.

This could possibly even out the playing field that someone else's kid gets a better education than another. At least you can hold the local administration decision-making and policies accountable if all schools are then equal (in funding). Besides, it just may get parents more involved in their kids education instead of letting the government baby-sit them from cradle and eventually to the grave.

-dk

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Follow the trend line with one or two minor exceptions, unemployment up under the Republicans, down under the Democrats, of course there's no mention of the surplus that Bill left behind for Bush to fritter away either

No, your graph sucks. Don't even try to insult our intelligence with that crap.

You cannot provide evidence to support your assertions above. We are left to conclude you don't know what you're talking about. You should stick with UK politics.