Truth vs Propaganda in the Debt Ceiling deal

[Cutlass]

Who's at that level? Or is that just how you characterize "Less revenue is less revenue?"

And... Seductive logic? Is that why you think Reagan hired him, for his seductive logic?

Reagan hired Stockman because Stockman was a True Believer. He was the lord high acolyte of the Cult. And as such, Stockman is a very important figure. Because, unfortunately for the Cult, Stockman was also a fiscal conservative. A true budget hawk.

What Stockman learned was that you could not be a budget hawk or a fiscal conservative and still be a high priest of the Cult. Because ultimately Supply Side economics is to economics what Scientology is to religion. A deliberate fraud.

Now certainly some people truly believe the fraud. But most of the people are just in it as a get rich quick scheme.

Stockman exposed the fraud. And for that he is the great heretic of the Cult. Which is why he is so demonized.

He's the traitor to the Cult. So no one still of the Cult will accept a word he says.

 

[Cutlass]

I have highlighted the appropriate word in your reply that shows what you said earlier was completely false. kthxbye.

So even though that means that you will make everyone worse off, you think that you can claim that you won't?

 

[aw3524]

Because ultimately Supply Side economics is to economics what Scientology is to religion. A deliberate fraud.

We're trying to get away from propaganda and toward truth here, Cutlass.

 

[MobBoss]

So even though that means that you will make everyone worse off, you think that you can claim that you won't?

Again, your premise isnt a given, and even many democrats agree that medicare/medicaid and social security will need to be revised in order to remain solvent in the future.

I find it telling that you still try to defend the proven falsehoods you mentioned earlier. Is there nothing that you wont try to spin for mere propaganda purposes?

 

[Tarquelne]

Nvrmnd.

 

[deanej]

I think tax cuts actually lead to less jobs. Think about it. If taxes are high, Mr. CEO is going to take money that would have been in his big fat bonus and re-invest it into the company, which enjoys a near 0 tax rate regardless due to loopholes. This means jobs get created. But if taxes are low, Mr. CEO will get the money in his big fat bonus, and depending on the economy, either pocket it or use it to buy a fleet of giant death robots*.

*Money may be used in ways other than buying a fleet of giant death robots.

 

[BasketCase]

I think tax cuts actually lead to less jobs. Think about it. If taxes are high, Mr. CEO is going to take money that would have been in his big fat bonus and re-invest it into the company

.....or to some other place the taxes are not high. Such as Mexico.

 

[GoodGame]

I think tax cuts actually lead to less jobs. Think about it. If taxes are high, Mr. CEO is going to take money that would have been in his big fat bonus and re-invest it into the company, which enjoys a near 0 tax rate regardless due to loopholes. This means jobs get created. But if taxes are low, Mr. CEO will get the money in his big fat bonus, and depending on the economy, either pocket it or use it to buy a fleet of giant death robots*.

*Money may be used in ways other than buying a fleet of giant death robots.

Corporate tax isn't near zero though, at least not in the USA. We tend to have higher corporate taxes than even Europe. The real problem with tax cuts is even if they cause some growth, if the money has no loyalty to the nation, and is spend overseas rather than domestically, the tax cuts are just lost revenue. As long as taxes are moderate, people are going to work hard anyways to make money and capitalize if they are in a position to capitalize, and the resulting job creation that follows.

Consumer spending is more of the issue in my book. If consumer confidence is low (http://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm) (right now it is because so many people are too high in debt x (e.g. paid too much for their house that they're still paying down) http://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm they won't spend, so there won't be labor demand, therefore fewer jobs .


But anyway, no opinion on the current talks other than we probably would default if the other nations start doing it. Otherwise I think there will be much wrangling, and 11th hour moderate agreements made---i.e. only token tax increases, and the least popular spending will be cut, regardless of its importance.

 

[GamezRule]

Real corporate taxes are very low here. Most major corporations pay nothing, and I think News Corp is an example of receiving negative tax.

 

[Cutlass]

We're trying to get away from propaganda and toward truth here, Cutlass.

Which is what I did. I exposed the propaganda of SS econ.

What SS, or the Republican version of it does not do, is increase investments.

Now, in theory, there might be a situation and design of SS that would have some benefit. But The US has never had those conditions. And the design of it in no way would even consider personal income tax cuts as part of the program.

The Republican version of SS is designed to fail. Because it is actually designed to redistribute wealth, not create it. In fact, it is designed to redistribute wealth at the expense of creating it.

Taxation design in not entirely a Zero Sum Game. But Republican Supply Side theory is Zero Sum. It may even be Negative Sum. That is, there is no way for the gain of the winners to exceed the loss of the losers. And, given that a lot of the interest payments are made to foreigners, for the US as a whole it is a net Negative Sum game.

The longer we stay with Supply Side economics, the poorer the US will be in the long run.

Again, your premise isnt a given, and even many democrats agree that medicare/medicaid and social security will need to be revised in order to remain solvent in the future.

Medicare may need a lot of work. But gutting it is not the way to go about it.

I find it telling that you still try to defend the proven falsehoods you mentioned earlier. Is there nothing that you wont try to spin for mere propaganda purposes?

I haven't said any falsehoods. And all the propaganda spinning is coming from you.

 

[JerichoHill]

That particular poll indicates that Americans favor spending cuts over taxes by a pretty good margin. No where near Obama's 80% claim is shown to be true.

Except you are misrepresenting it. 20% of Americans want there to be no taxes increase. The you have 80% which favor *some* tax increase (who knows what that is)

 

[Ayatollah So]

In that poll, only 20% said they wanted only pure spending cuts, which is the republican position, so Obama was assuming that the remaining 80% opposed the republican position.

Which is a bad assumption, though it might be close to 80%. It's not exactly 80% because there are some Americans - yours truly for example - who want neither tax increases nor spending cuts in the next 2-3 years. We're in the middle of a Great Recession, dammit. Austerity is bad medicine right now.

and I think News Corp is an example of receiving negative tax.

No, the reporter who broke that story made a mistake. News Corp changed the way they reported taxes, from writing "X" to show that they paid $X taxes to writing "(X)" to show that they paid $X. Edit: for those not familiar with financial reports: parentheses usually indicate negative numbers. They didn't adequately explain the stylistic change, and the reporter naturally (but wrongly) thought this meant they got a refund. (Source: heard on NPR)

 

[MobBoss]

Medicare may need a lot of work. But gutting it is not the way to go about it.

No ones talking about 'gutting it' either.

I haven't said any falsehoods. And all the propaganda spinning is coming from you.

See above 'cause you just did it again.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'll just chip in it's fortunate few ordinary people actually will move countries.

Plus, many conservatives are too patriotic to move overseas I'd imagine.

So long as tax rates are competitive, all is good. And as I recall, we have quite a bit of leeway in tax rates over the rest of the world. We can raise taxes without it becoming more expensive to live here versus Europe or elsewhere.

 

[MobBoss]

Except you are misrepresenting it. 20% of Americans want there to be no taxes increase. The you have 80% which favor *some* tax increase (who knows what that is)

Is 'favor' the right word? Or in the word Obama used: 'support'. There may indeed need to be 'some' tax increase to finally deal with it, but only after the economy has gotten better. And you certainly have to admit there are a huge gradations among all that.

Again:

There is a huge partisan divide on the question. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats want a tax hike in the deal while 82% of Republicans do not. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 35% favor a tax hike and 51% are opposed.

Thats a lot of people opposed to a tax hike being part of the deal, which is what we are referring to in the immediate. If this is indeed correct, then Obama shouldnt be saying '80% of Americans support his idea to raise taxes' because it simply isnt true. It may be true in the long run in dealing with the deficit, but its not currently true of fixing the debt limit.

 

[Cutlass]

No ones talking about 'gutting it' either.



See above 'cause you just did it again.

It's not possible to balance the budget without tax increases without gutting all discretionary spending.

 

[deanej]

.....or to some other place the taxes are not high. Such as Mexico.

Corporate tax isn't near zero though, at least not in the USA. We tend to have higher corporate taxes than even Europe. The real problem with tax cuts is even if they cause some growth, if the money has no loyalty to the nation, and is spend overseas rather than domestically, the tax cuts are just lost revenue. As long as taxes are moderate, people are going to work hard anyways to make money and capitalize if they are in a position to capitalize, and the resulting job creation that follows.

Consumer spending is more of the issue in my book. If consumer confidence is low (http://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm) (right now it is because so many people are too high in debt x (e.g. paid too much for their house that they're still paying down) http://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm they won't spend, so there won't be labor demand, therefore fewer jobs .


But anyway, no opinion on the current talks other than we probably would default if the other nations start doing it. Otherwise I think there will be much wrangling, and 11th hour moderate agreements made---i.e. only token tax increases, and the least popular spending will be cut, regardless of its importance.

While the official corporate tax rate is 35%, the truth is that there are so many loopholes that they pay little in taxes.

Outsourcing is motivated primarily by artificially low wages abroad. Unless the government put a huge tax penalty on oursourcing, there's little we can do.

Consumer spending will never return to what we had barring growth so massive that it's impossible. The previous spending level was fueled by credit card debt, and people are starting to lean to live within their means and have more realistic expectations for the future.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Corporations pay little in taxes, if they pay enough to tax attorneys. Smaller corporations who don't have access to the best lawyers tend to pay a higher rate. Such a tax code acts as a barrier to entry and reduces free market competition.

 

[Rashiminos]

The truth is that July 22 is the deadline in order to be able to implement the changes by August 2.

 

[MobBoss]

It's not possible to balance the budget without tax increases without gutting all discretionary spending.

Uhm. False.