Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr. Hoopah!

    9627

  • Leon Troutsky

    8096

  • Psychic Gibbon

    7930

  • AF89

    6238

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Saving for posterity...just sayin'

Besides some of the negatives (like some dumb tweets) I'm getting what I voted for.  I wanted an outsider who was willing to change the old status quo Washington and (GOP) and take care of the nasty,

That's your fall back, I should've just posted that for you to save you some time.  

Posted Images

Op-Ed from Bruce Bartlett, the guy who helped create the myth (his words) that tax cuts boost economy growth:

Four decades ago, while working for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), I had a hand in creating the Republican tax myth. Of course, it didn’t seem like a myth at that time — taxes were rising rapidly because of inflation and bracket creep, the top tax rate was 70 percent and the economy seemed trapped in stagflation with no way out. Tax cuts, at that time, were an appropriate remedy for the economy’s ills. By the time Ronald Reagan was president, Republican tax gospel went something like this:

  • The tax system has an enormously powerful effect on economic growth and employment.
  • High taxes and tax rates were largely responsible for stagflation in the 1970s.
  • Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, which was based a bill, co-sponsored by Kemp and Sen. William Roth (R-Del.), that I helped design, unleashed the American economy and led to an abundance of growth.

Based on this logic, tax cuts became the GOP’s go-to solution for nearly every economic problem. Extravagant claims are made for any proposed tax cut. Wednesday, President Trump arguedthat “our country and our economy cannot take off” without the kind of tax reform he proposes. Last week, Republican economist Arthur Laffer said, “If you cut that [corporate] tax rate to 15 percent, it will pay for itself many times over. … This will bring in probably $1.5 trillion net by itself.”

That’s wishful thinking. So is most Republican rhetoric around tax cutting. In reality, there’s no evidence that a tax cut now would spur growth.

The Reagan tax cut did have a positive effect on the economy, but the prosperity of the ’80s is overrated in the Republican mind. In fact, aggregate real gross domestic product growth was higher in the ’70s — 37.2 percent vs. 35.9 percent.

Moreover, GOP tax mythology usually leaves out other factors that also contributed to growth in the 1980s: First was the sharp reduction in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. The fed funds rate fell by more than half, from about 19 percent in July 1981 to about 9 percent in November 1982. Second, Reagan’s defense buildup and highway construction programs greatly increased the federal government’s purchases of goods and services. This is textbook Keynesian economics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helped-create-the-gop-tax-myth-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.cc73eac25d6f

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

It would have been nice if Founders like Thomas Paine won out regarding inheritance. He wanted the government to seize all assets when someone died, sell them off, and distribute that wealth to the rest of the population... an idea he got from libertarian ubermensch Adam Smith.

I guess the other Founders, who were almost all aristocrats and business magnates, really wanted to keep the aristocratic system.

Sounds more socialist than Libertarian to me...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, capologist said:

I don't see the relevance of that question...

Adam Smith’s argument is that large estates mean that the children who inherit those estates are less likely to work.  They live their entire lives off the wealth of their inheritance and they have fewer achievements of their own.  A true meritocracy means that everybody has to compete on equal footing.  The notion that some people with large inherited wealth will have an economic advantage simply because they were born into wealthy families undermines an economic meritocracy.

Is Adam Smith wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, capologist said:

I don't see the relevance of that question...

Economic meritocracy was the point of Smith's position. Not only did the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few stifle economic growth but it discouraged economic meritocracy. Within a system where inheritance was allowed all you had to do in life was be born in the right family and hope your parents didn't squander their wealth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Adam Smith’s argument is that large estates mean that the children who inherit those estates are less likely to work.  They live their entire lives off the wealth of their inheritance and they have fewer achievements of their own.  A true meritocracy means that everybody has to compete on equal footing.  The notion that some people with large inherited wealth will have an economic advantage simply because they were born into wealthy families undermines an economic meritocracy.

Is Adam Smith wrong?

Again, I don't find it relevant. It doesn't matter to me whether he's right or wrong, I don't agree with the concept of taking from someone just because someone died.  His argument has no bearing on my statement...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Economic meritocracy was the point of Smith's position. Not only did the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few stifle economic growth but it discouraged economic meritocracy. Within a system where inheritance was allowed all you had to do in life was be born in the right family and hope your parents didn't squander their wealth.

Yes, I understand that but as I just responded, whether he's right or wrong has no bearing on my statement...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, capologist said:

Again, I don't find it relevant. It doesn't matter to me whether he's right or wrong, I don't agree with the concept of taking from someone just because someone died.  His argument has no bearing on my statement...

It demonstrates that you are supporting aristocracy instead of a true libertarian vision of economic meritocracy.  In other words, the estate tax is a libertarian and conservative idea.  You are rejecting that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

It demonstrates that you are supporting aristocracy instead of a true libertarian vision of economic meritocracy.  In other words, the estate tax is a libertarian and conservative idea.  You are rejecting that.

Not sure what Libertarians you've been talking to but that's entirely against the Libertarian philosophy so no, I'm not rejecting libertarianism, I'm rejecting your premise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, capologist said:

Not sure what Libertarians you've been talking to but that's entirely against the Libertarian philosophy so no, I'm not rejecting libertarianism, I'm rejecting your premise.

Libertarian economic philosophy is rooted in Adam Smith’s theories.  So obviously it’s not against libertarian philosophy.  In fact, it is an important part of ensuring a true economic meritocracy, which is the core of libertarian philosophy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mdrake34 said:

 

Kushner registered in New York as a female voter

By Megan R. Wilson - 09/27/17 10:51 AM EDT 597

Presidential son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner is registered as a female voter in New York, according to public records.

Registration records show that when Kushner, who is married to first daughter Ivanka Ivanka, registered to vote in 2009, he apparently checked a box classifying his gender as a female.

Democratic opposition research group American Bridge first spotted the error, which Wired then reported first.

"Kushner can't even fill out the most basic paperwork without screwing it up, so it's a mystery why anyone thinks he's somehow going to bring peace to the Middle East," Brad Bainum, a spokesperson for the group, told Wired about the mistake. "Would anyone but the president's son-in-law still have a West Wing job after repeated disclosure errors and a botched a security clearance form?"

Kushner, who has a vast portfolio of issues at the White House, has had to amend his federal security clearance forms multiple times to include meetings with foreign contacts.

He told congressional investigators that the mistakes have been due to a “miscommunication” with his assistant. 

Prior to 2009, his New Jersey voter registration noted his gender as “unknown.”

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/352654-kushner-registered-to-vote-in-new-york-as-a-female

Kushner's daddy had to pay for him to get in to Harvard. 

LOCK HER UP

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Libertarian economic philosophy is rooted in Adam Smith’s theories.  So obviously it’s not against libertarian philosophy.  In fact, it is an important part of ensuring a true economic meritocracy, which is the core of libertarian philosophy.

To say you are oversimplifying and distorting  would be an understatement...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...