southsider2k5

So pretty much only Carasco has a chance of making this team.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 02:08 PM) I guess it depends who you read. I read a few books, years back, that made a pretty good case. I read me In all seriousness, kap and I had lots of the same profs in college. The two main econ guys where we went to school were on opposite ends of the specturn. One actually was a labor negotiator for a couple of the steel unions back in the day. The other was a right wing guy, who was very much a supply sider. Between those two and our finance prof who was self-proclaimed "to the right of Rush" we got a pretty good exposure to economic theory. You can make a good case for just about any of these things depending on how you want to interpret the facts. My understanding of economic theory, and real world experience is that things like sales taxes and value added taxes are super-regressive based on income brackets. As I see it, the efforts it would take to level out the regressiveness would complicate the system to the point it wouldn't be much different than the one we see now, not to mention the unintended consequences of things like blackmarkets emerging to avoid these taxes.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 12:22 PM) OK now hold on a second here. I personally believe that you can get rid of the income tax, and reduce the IRS down to a small fraction its size, and still have a "fair" tax for all income brackets. I like to think I also have a conscience. I have yet to see a proposal that looked anywhere near as "fair" as the system we have now. I have followed these things to the eyeteeth back to the Steve Forbes flat tax FWIW.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 11:19 AM) I got news for you. Most rich people understand that this is a bad idea. I know this would be a net gain for the economy as a whole, but it would kill people who need their money the most.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 12:11 AM) The reason I say it - is because in the original Constitution - it was not permitted by the Federal Government to tax its' citizens. And it was simply amended and can be amended back, again. Its not "out of the question" to do. Simply cutting back on many of the unneccessary spending would allow it to happen. There doesn't need to be a Department of Education, etc. The biggest hinderance of a very quality education IS the Dept. of Education. The Dept. of Education is a government run program & what does the government want out of its' citizens? Exactly what (how they teach) you in school - "stay in single file line, follow the person in front of you, don't speak out of turn, don't think far outside the box from what we tell you to know etc. etc." Most (and note, I didn't say all - I said most) government run programs are histerically inefficient. So why do we allow them to control everything? It is not in the Constitution saying they can create all these programs to control its' citizens. Why should we provide healthcare to every person? What if I don't want healthcare - why do I still need to be taxed for it? Why should I support the fat slob down the street who smokes cigarettes all day and will need all the medical care in the world? Socialized programs are inefficient by nature. Inefficiency is what has caused many of the problems in the country we face today. I don't see why this is not realized by more? I guess the government really has created some great factory workers who like to follow each other's lead and not realize the intelligence of those who can think outside the box. And I didn't even realize that following the Constitution's guidelines was even thinking outside the box - but apparently one of the many socialized programs the government has forced upon everyone has truly washed out many. I guess that explains why our education level has dropped off the map in the last few decades. The great thing about our constitution is that it is a living document, and within that document lies the ability to amend it. It was the framers of the constitutions intent to allow the constitution to be updated as needed, so that it did not become outdated and impotent like the Articles of Confederation had done in a very short amount of time. Honoring the amendments to our constitution IS following the constitutions guidelines. I also have a big problem with your leap of faith from taxation to government programs. There is a big difference from believing that the government can tax (or not), and not agreeing with the socialist welfare state that we are on the road to becoming. Your view of the consitution taken seemingly from 1789's eyes does not reflect that fact that we aren't just 13 states anymore, and we have a population of over 300,000,000 people. Demands on a goverment change when you go from being the size of Europe to the 3rd biggest country in size on the planet earth. Even a simple defense force, which is one of the functions of the constitution, would require taxation to pay for. Not to mention some of the other original missions laid out by our constitutional framers, that would still need to be undertaken by the government, such as interstate commerce protections and the court systems. The 18th century is gone, you couldn't even pay for the minimal stuff with tariffs and the like. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of validity to what Ron Paul has to say. The problem is he has taken lots of his positions to unrealistic extremes. We do need to cut federal government and social welfare back. But getting rid of the income tax is just foolish. It can't be done. Then again judging by Paul's newsletters, he is probably looking to get rid of those pesky 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments...

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 03:19 PM) Or you could simply vote for Ron Paul and not have ANY federal income taxes whatsoever, along with getting rid of the run-away inflation that is brought on by the federal government - which is a 'hidden' tax in its own. Plus, gasoline would cost substantially less as there would be no federal taxes on it...but, I suppose have a balanced budget is just crazy. The really weird thing - no taxes, and a balanced budget are VERY easy to achieve & Ron Paul is the only guy who actually WANTS that done. And he gives you quarters when you lose a tooth!

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 02:41 PM) He would be taxed roughly $7,336,103 based on the current system. So, he would need to spend the equivalent of $5,643,156 today (5,643,156 x 30% sales tax = $7,336,102.80) In the sales tax system, if he earns $20 million and only spends $1 million, the guy is only taxes on $1,000,000. The income tax system taxes the full amount of his earnings. That is the exact reason you hear rich candidates advocating this system. By contrast someone who now earns and spends $20k in a year, doesn't pay any income taxes and probably gets a refund from things like the earned income tax credit and the like. Under a "fair tax" they are taxed on that full $20k. Even if you put in a system that gives them an exemption somehow, they still lose things like the EITC. I have posted this statistic over and over again, but the bottom two quintiles of taxpayers actually not only pay no net taxes, but they actually make a profit off of the current tax system. That is all gone under a "fair tax" It is the richest taxpayers that would benefit from this type of system.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 02:40 PM) The Great Depression was not caused by cuts in government spending. Certainly, once the disaster occurred that resulted in it took hold, then the New Deal used a lot of deficit spending to revive the economy. That sort of drastic action was needed at the time. But government spending levels were not a causation. I would be open to conditions on the balanced budget amendment... 3/4 super-majority to override, or a declaration of War (and only applicable to that spending), for example. You always want to have that last resort option available. But that is what it should be. And there are multiple cycles to look at here. If the government can consistently keep and spend more money, it has more reserves to tackle economic issues. Also, that larger flow of services and jobs to the public would help stave off future recessions or soften them. No doubt this sort of thing would need to be implemented in phases over a long period, but the end result is very positive, in my view. I purposely didn't say that government spending caused the great depression. It added to the problems, just like it would here. The big villians that really kicked the GD into a depression was the banks only because weren't led by the Federal Reserve at the time, and their actions took tons of cash out of the system, which eventually collapsed government tax receipts.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 02:30 PM) Is it because 1. We need to spend that exact amount and not a dime less? 2. We need to collect that exact amount and not a dime more? 3. It has to be a debt? It would seem that we tax and spend not to run the country, but to manipulate the economy. I agree that "free" money today is a nice thing for the economy, but that "free" dollar becomes more and more expensive as it needs to be repaid. It also gives politicians a free ride to just give us stuff with the promise that someone else will pay for it. The definition of a "recession" is two consecutive quarters of GNP shrinkage. In this event tax revenues fall, which means that the US budget would have to contract to meet that smaller tax receipt. This means less programs, jobs, funding ect for people who depend on the government for income. Either that or they have to raise taxes to meet the current budgetary levels, which again, takes more money out of the general economy, and exsaserbates the recession. You can have a balanced budget in good times, but you can't in bad times, unless you want big and long bad times.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 02:25 PM) Does the next $20M get stuffed in a mattress? No, it gets invested. That's why I specified that you keep taxes on cap gains, interest, etc. The more they invest, and the more EVERYONE invests, more money is put into the budget to play with (and the more the tax rates can be reduced). Beause of the forced reserves of banking and the higher savings rate of the rich, there is a lot of money taken out of circulation by the upper classes. Its not like giving money to the poor who have zero savings rates. The multipliers are MUCH different in these classes.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) Only true in the short term. Deficit spending creates debt, and debt creates more debt if you never run a surplus. So we end up paying more and more out of government coffers every year to interest, which is not programmatic money from the government that can help keep the economy going. Long run, the economy will be much stronger with a balanced budget amendment, IMO. It will be true on a cyclical basis. Not only would it happen now, it would keep happening everytime we had a decent recession. The metrics involved are the sameones that led to the Great Depression, and many of the large panics and recessions of the 19th and early 20th centuries. You cannot cut spending in a recession and not expect disaster. It just doesn't work that way.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 02:14 PM) I agree. You shouldn't. If we are indeed being talking into a recession, the LAST thing you want right now is a balanced budget. The spending cuts or tax increases to make it happen will turn a garden variety recession into a full blow depression.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 01:52 PM) It would probably be a disaster. Any regressive tax is not what we need to be doing. thank you. This is a tax increase on the non-voting poor, to benefit the middle class.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...1/1050/SPORTS01

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 10:37 AM) You'd think we live in Communist Russia by looking at some of the comments in here. I felt the same way about listening to the last 7 years...

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 10:00 AM) Kerry threw his former running mate under the bus. If Edwards isn't worthy of being president, how the hell do you choose him for vice-president? Geesh. I hadn't even put that one together. Nice catch.

We'll have to wait and see if he runs as his independant self, or if he undergoes a Romney/Edwards makeover to run on a national stage. I'd love to see someone run as an economic conservative, and mostly as a hands-off social on positions.

Rasmussen tries to explain their crappy polls. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...n_new_hampshire

Well guess who wasn't running, but all of the sudden is thinking about it again... I still think he is in bed with the Unity Party. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/blo...ref=mpstoryview

OUt of curiousity, any rumblings on a Gore endorsement?

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 07:06 PM) I think Universal health care is a bad name. There's got to be a way to mix the capitalism with socialism. I mean, instaed of having the poor go to the ER for a bad cold and sit and wait for 12 hours. Everyone SHOULD have healthcare, no matter if your income is zero or a gazillionaire. I am not a politician nor am I a policy maker, but there's got to be a way. Maybe all hospitals should have free clinics attached to it? I don't know. As an economist this line of thinking really bothers me. Why would people hold the belief that we are going to get more and better healthcare by taking the incentive to conserve health care out of the system? Think about it. Our system is this overburdened and out of whack with it being very expensive to partake in health care today. Say we take the costs of the system for patients, it actually gives them MORE reason to go to a doctor everytime something is wrong, not less. Unless someone comes up with a way to produce way more doctors, hospitals, nurses, clinics, etc, wait and quality of service are not going to improve if you add WAY more people and visits to the system. In fact, I would bet the system collapses if they take the patient costs out of the system. Economically the cost of health care tells you exactly the demands being put on the system, even at the higher prices. Plus it is an economic fact that if the government goes in and forces a reduction in prices, it will result in a reduction, not an increase, in services being offered in the medical sector. If you remove the profit incentive, you remove people who are willing to offer their products and services. The law of unintended consequences is worth exploring in depth here.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 05:57 PM) South Africa saids "hi"

If Romney can' t win Michigan, he needs to hang it up, regardless of how many delegates he has, and go back to selling used cars or something.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 06:12 PM) AP: Bill Richardson to drop out. Or not: NBC: Richardson campaign denies report he is dropping out of Democratic presidential race More details: Richardson may simply suspend his campaign, thus no longer campaigning for the nomination but not endorsing anyone. Its pretty telling when a guy who worked for Camp Clinton for all of those years, first of all ran against Hillary, and then won't drop out of the race, nor endorse her for President, dispite his miserably failing campaign. I'd love to hear his reasons why Clinton isn't fit for office.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) And I'm supposed to feel sorry for people who got stuck with more then they could ever REALLY afford? You don't buy s*** that you can't really have with some sort of gimmick and not pay for it later. Anything that is too good to be true, usually is. I think for s***s and grins I should go back and find that thread where some folks were talking about ARMS being the greatest thing ever... ummm, hmmmm... Don't worry, we will be subsidizing all of those people through higher taxes and interest rates. Yeah.