On taxes, who should get the cut?

[gbear]

Ah yes, but at issue is which benefits the economy more.

Personally, I wouldn't cut taxes. Instead I'd pay down the national debt. Oh wait, no I wouldn't. You can't pay down the debt with barrowed money.:doh:

The part of this that is really irksome is that we are taking money from our children to give a tax break to the rich which they don't need and isn't the best way to spur the economy to growth.

[Art]

Gbear,

Why not put down the liberal handbook on how to spew rhetoric for a moment. In this thread your theory on how to spur the economy seems to be factually destroyed. Given that, you are now falling back on the tax cut for the "rich" nonsense.

At issue here isn't one bit what's best for the economy though. At issue is whether the people who pay 96 percent of federal income taxes -- which is anyone making over $27,000 a year -- ought not get 96 percent of whatever lessening of the tax burden.

That's what's at issue.

Now, I know you are the arbitrator of what people need and what they don't need. But, let me ask you some simple questions. Do you have a car? Do you need one? I mean, couldn't you live in the heart of the city and use mass transit? Do you have a television? Do you need it? Why? Do you see where I'm going here? Why do you get to say what anyone else needs.

It is factually true that the best way to spur the economy is to increase corporate spending and manufacturing. A key way to do that is to bring money back into the stock market. But no matter how incorrectly you think the best way to go is to give a poor person some of my hard earned money so he can go by a 40 of OE -- and, yeah, since you can stereotype the rich, I can the poor, right? -- the question remains, if 50 percent of the people are paying 96 percent of federal income tax, shouldn't the 50 percent receive 96 percent of any federal income tax lessening?

If you want to pay off the national debt, though, you can do so. Cut social spending for 10 years to 0. Use that money to pay off the debt. Since servicing the interest on the debt is approximately the same amount as spent on social spending at present, you could then get the money back and we could still massively cut taxes in a decade. .

[fansince62]

which is why I tried to point out that we need to distinguish income transfers from fiscal policy/taxation policy.....

[gbear]

Alrighty Art, get down off your high horse for a min.

Factually destroyed? I pointed out the errors in the assumptions made above. Nobody ever came back to post on the assumptions. Odd. Now my points are factually destroyed because you have declared them so?

The assumption that investment is what's good for the economy regardless of consumption is flawed. Not one of the people on here aspousing investment as the cure all seems willing to recognize that investment that loses money doesn't help the economy.

What's more, I'm surprised you can't see the link between making a profit and others increasing their investments. You as a chief proponent of free market should get that. Why do people invest? It's not just because they have money. It's because they want more.

As a side issue, do you really think there are a wealth of investment opportuinities going unrealised because of lack of capital in the US right now? IF so, why is venture capitalism down? The people who have the money for venture capitalism still have it, but the returns aren't there. Why is the interest rate dropping if there is so much need for more capital?

Liberal handbook my a$$. Balancing the budget isn't liberal handbook. It's Newt Gingrich. I think it's funny that you view him as liberal. I think maybe you should stop thinking of everything which you disagree with as liberal. Maybe you should drop the Bush is always right handbook ;-) (sort of kidding). I suspect 10 years ago, you probably would have taken the Gingrich position.

The title of the thread is "who should get the cut." As I said ,I'm not for a cut. I think it's bad policy. I think doing it for broad economy reasons is stupid because these phases in the ups and downs of the economy pass all on their own. What's more anything enacted now won't have an impact till after the recession in all likelyhood (the whole theory of lags has relevance here too though you wouldn't know it from this thread).

However, if you are going to give a cut you should do it correctly for your goals. If the stated goal is economic stimulus, then the consumption side is a good way to go. If you are only doing it for fairness...then we have a debate where we won't likely agree. But don't pretend you're for the tax cut for purely stimuluis reasons if you're really only about "fairness." That's a different debate. My point from the beginning has been that the arguement of the tax package as econ stimulus should lead to a totally different conclussion.

[gbear]

Fan Since 62,

Just curious on a more philosophical tangent, how does one differentiate between the two? I know we don't agree on much so I'm curious on your take.

So long as we have any sort of income redistribution won't there be people like Art who equate any taxation with paying for something for somebody else?

Even if it's not income redistribution in cash, aren't there always going to be people saying "Why should I pay for public schools? I don't have children." or other such arguements?

I guess my struggle on this thread and in large part on this very conservative board is trying to make anyone else understand that when society benefits, everyone benefits even if it is indirectly. Taxation does not have to be a zero sum game. IN the school example, even without kids most of us benefit from having an educated workforce. Most of us have much higher salaries than people doing our same job overseas because of the cost of labor here. That cost is maintained because our workforce is educated and better able to do many jobs which allows for a better economy. I chose education because I keep reading some broad support on here (though of course not unanimous). My point is that what directly benefits one is not the total of benefits that one can receive.

[Art]

Gbear,

I didn't declare your statements false. Reality did. To recap, you said consumer spending was the driving force behind the economy. That's false. You can't point out errors in stating the opposite of the incorrect statement you made that consumer spending has put us into recession.

In fact, that's entirely false on your part and you later admitted that, sure, consumer spending has been pretty strong, so I'm not sure why you are protesting being proven wrong. You said you were wrong. You did say it was being taken for granted and that it was now heading south, which is true, since as you were informed, consumer spending is a trailing indicator. It is the last to fall, and often it doesn't tail off until we are already out of the recession caused by other factors.

So, since YOU said this yourself, "As for consumer spending being good, that's been true." So, yeah, you've been factually destroyed and, it was reality, and you yourself who have declared it so.

But, again, that factual nature of the arguments others have made and the admitted mistakes you have made is irrelevant. It's clear, but it's irrelevant.

No one has ever stated that investement is good for the economy regardless of consumption. People have correctly pointed out that investment spurs consumption as, again, consumer spending is a lagging indicator of a fall or a rise in the economy. But, that's irrelevant.

Stating that we should balance the budget is closer to relevant, but it appears your view is the only way in the world to balance a budget is to continue to tax people. I'd simply say there's an entirely different method for paying off the national debt. It's called decreasing spending. You see, if I need to cover an extra $100 a month in my life, I have two choices. Hope my boss gives me a raise, or, cut spending elsewhere.

So, you see, I'm all for paying down the national debt. Just as you are. So, let's do it by decreasing government spending because, that will, of course, also accomplish the task, will it not? Still, while this remains close to relevant, it falls short of being relevant.

The relevant question is what the title of this thread and the question contained in the opening post requests. Who should get the tax cut?

I fully appreciate you don't believe in a tax cut. I get it. The question remains, and it's one you seem unwilling to answer. If 50 percent of the people pay 96 percent of the federal income tax shouldn't 50 percent of the people receive 96 percent of the lessening of that burden?

That's the relevant question.

We can argue the proven merits of how tax cuts spur government intake and creates jobs, just as Democrat JFK stated and proved and Reagan stated and proved. But, that's for another thread.

The sound economic stimulus of allowing people to keep their own money shouldn't be lost on any but the most devoted Marxist among us. You may be precisely that. You may simply not understand that when people keep the money they earn that's good for the economy. I don't understand how you could miss that, but, you seem to have missed it, and for the purpose of this thread, it's irrelevant.

The question, again, is, if 50 percent of the people pay 96 percent of the federal income tax, should those 50 percent of the people receive 96 percent of the lessening of their burden? That's the relevant question.

I know liberals hate answering questions like this as it is generally very stark how it exposes them. You don't, clearly, want to answer this question because deep down you want to scream that NO, the people who pay taxes shouldn't get money back when taxes are cut. You want to lecture me, I'm certain, that the people who pay no taxes should get the tax cut because, well, just because.

I get it. I do.

But, are you even capable of answering the question?

Once again, here's the question. If 50 percent of the people pay 96 percent of the federal tax burden, should those 50 percent get 96 percent of any tax cut the government elects to give back. You can even answer this as simply as offering a "yes" or a "no".

Depending on your answer, I may ask you what country you live in and if you can recite the principles by which we live under. I doubt you'll be overly successful in this as you seem to think one principle we live under is a fictional separation of church and state as if that's remotely true.

So, again, if 50 percent of the U.S. taxpayers pay 96 percent of the federal income tax, should those 50 percent receive 96 percent of the rebate if one is given. You don't have to be for the rebate. You can be angry at the economic stupidity of allowing people to retain some of their money because, I get it, it's bad policy to have the money in the hands of the people.

I just want to hear you answer the question asked. Just once.

Since you haven't been able to identify the question up to this point, let me close with it. If 50 percent of the American taxpaying public pay 96 percent of all federal income tax, then if there is a tax cut, shouldn't those 50 percent get 96 percent of whatever that cut is?

Am I asking a question that simply is impossible to answer?

Either your answer is yes, those 50 percent do deserve 96 percent of the lessened burden, which means you are FOR a tax cut for the rich -- with rich being anyone making over $27,000 and who fall into the Top 50 percent.

Or, your answer is no, that those 50 percent who pay the 96 percent of federal income tax don't deserve 96 percent of a tax cut, which means you believe we are or should be the U.S.S.R and you are strongly in favor of a government imposed redistribution of wealth.

Pick your poison .

We can talk about the rest in another thread you may feel free to start. I'd be all to happy to ridicule you for thinking it's bad economic policy to allow Americans to keep the money they earn. And, you did say that. Just to be clear, you did say, "As I said ,I'm not for a cut. I think it's bad policy. I think doing it for broad economy reasons is stupid because these phases in the ups and downs of the economy pass all on their own."

So, I get it. It's bad policy to let people keep their money. It's stupid to do it to benefit the economy because the phases of the economy pass all on their own and if Americans actually were allowed to keep their money, that would simply be bad policy. I get it. So, answer the question.

[Art]

Gbear, I have to comment on one other quote you just made.

"I guess my struggle on this thread and in large part on this very conservative board is trying to make anyone else understand that when society benefits, everyone benefits even if it is indirectly."

I have two things to say. First. "Back to the U.S.S.R." Do you realize you are a socialist? It's ok to be a socialist. But, do you even realize you are one? When society benefits, everyone benefits, even if it's indirectly. You'd be a proud member of the communist party in Soviet Russia.

Do you know what I struggle with? I struggle with trying to make liberals understand, as liberal JFK understood, that a rising tide lifts all boats. That when a single individual benefits, everyone else benefits, even if it is indirectly. If I had $20,000 in a tax cut, I would employ a carpenter and patio maker to work on my house. He would buy a new computer. Dell would hire another customizer. He'd buy his wife a package of roses for Valentines Day.

I know you are clearly in favor of the government controlling everything, and that's a wonderful idea that has never worked anywhere it's been tried. There are other forms of government that have worked. God bless America.

[TheKurp]

Okay Art, I've stayed out of this, mostly because I don't pretend to understand economics. In fact, in college I had to take Macro Economics twice just to get a "C".

I'm not sure gbear deserves the moniker of socialist. Now I'm sure the first thought that comes to you is, "What do you expect? One liberal defending another."

I don't like labels so you won't see me painting "conservative" on anyone's forehead when their views disagree with mine.

I believe the point gbear was making, and he used school taxes to underscore it, was that sometimes you should try to view the forest for the trees. Using the school tax example, if all homeowners, regardless of whether they have dependent children, didn't pay school taxes, then you'd likely have a school budget deficit which in all likelihood would negatively impact the level of education that children receive. Looking ahead, if people lack the necessary education to acquire jobs that pay well, then they're going to pay less taxes, no? Less taxes mean less Federal budget, no? Or worse, the uneducated wind up on welfare and taxpayers foot the bill, no?

The point gbear is trying to make is that if you look far enough into the proverbial forest, there is a domino effect that reverberates beyond the short-term, or a single person. You can forego environmental concerns in favor of producing short term economic gains, but the piper will come calling at some point, and we'll pay a higher price down the road. Perhaps you and I won't pay the piper, but future generations will. Mining and burning fossil fuels regardless of the environmental impact might help today's economy, but what happens when severe droughts, brought on by ozone depletion, cause water to be an endangered resource? What's the economic, health, and social impact of water rationing?

To your original question, I don't have an answer. I do know that I, like gbear, have no need for a tax break. Would I like one? Sure. But I can live just fine without one.

I'm curious, you speak of reducing government spending, what programs would you cut to have the greatest impact on spending?

[tex]

The poor should not pay taxes.

The dead should not pay taxes.

The same money should not be taxed twice.

Married couples should not pay more taxes than singles.

The Tax lawyers and accounts will insure Americans stay under the thumb of a tax code that is incomprehensible in its entirety to any one person for as long as any of us are likely to live.

Here in Texas we don't file a state tax return unlike the state of Virginia where I lived for far to long. The state finances come from sales tax. Trust me, after filing state tax returns for decades it is SWEET to not have to file them any more. The Feds could institute a tax code that would allow an average citizen to do their taxes on a post card but they just don't want to give up all the power that is the IRS.

[gbear]

Um Art,

Yeah I did say the consumer spending side has been strong and that's been true until recently. Look at Christmas this year with spending rising a meager 0.7% and that's largely attributed to huge sales and specials like Amazon's free shipping. Keep in mind last year wasn't a banner increase either.

Lets look at where it's been strong. Car sales and house sales. Look at where stocks have done all right. Hmm, could it be that with 0 percent financing on cars people actually bought cars? Could it possibly be that people buying actually made our consumer expenditures look decent?

Now lets look at where stocks aren't worth spit now. Hmm internet and technology and to some extent manufacturing. Why do you think that might be the case? Could it be that people aren't BUYING? Now you might argue that people and businesses aren't buying for particular reasons. Fine. The one I hear most often is surplus inventory. I wonder how one gets a surplus inventory. Oh wait, I know. I bet it's when people don't buy. DO you think it might be possible that stock prices go down when companies don't show a profit because investment chases a profit. Again I ask how does one get a profit without consumer spending?

None of the housing and car sales influences my arguement. The economy is still better served by putting the money in the hands of those who will spend it. Nothing I have said contradicts that.

Socialist? Somewhat. I don't run from petty labels. What's more, I don't think an idea is bad because you can label it something you don't like. By the way as a side issue, the USSR was not socialist. Read up on some socialist theory according to Marx. I've given concrete logic and been able to follow it up with examples. On your side of the arguement, I've heard references to graphs with shoddy assumptions. I've seen you desparage actually learning something in college. I've seen you call me a socialist (the only thing I've mildly agreed with).

Rising tide lifts all boats. .. I couldn't agree more. That's why I cringe at you trying to lift the boats instead of waiting for the tide. The tide is the economy going through it's normal ups and downs. The tide is consumer spending. A tax break to the rich is trying to lift the boats above water level. It's doable and it might work, but you can't seriously think it's the easiest way to lift a boat.

Fair. I said we'd end up in a different debate with this, but if you insist. I think it's perfectly fair for the rich to pay more percentage wise. They benefit more from the government. Given that as a premise, I'm still fine with saying it's fair for the poor to get more than 4% of the tax break. What's more, I'm confident in saying that if the top 5% of the wage earners only get 10% of the tax break (despite the percentage paid), they'll actually see there purchasing power increase by more than the 10% of the tax cut. They'll get the 10% of the tax cut back plus the effect of the rising tide. That's the forest you're missing.

What I don't get is your continued assumption that investment automatically causes consumption. I've given example after example where that's not true. Please give some examples where increased consumption has failed to bring investment? If you want to buy it enough to pay for it, somebody will produce it. Odd that a "socialist" has to mention that basic tenet of free markets.

[gbear]

Oh and by the way, separation of church and state is one of our founding principles. Atleast that's what the courts have decided. If you're going to lecture me on founding principles, forgive me if I take the courts interpretations over yours. I'm vaguely aware of the debate over it, but as of right now, I believe the arguements are based on what wasn't said and how it wasn't said. LIek you said, perhaps a topic for another thread.

Point #2: You made a big point of saying take a look at where I live and the principles here as if to say I might be less patriotic for being "socialist." Well, on one hand it seems odd that I'm the one espousing letting the free market decide where investment goes. On the other hand I find it ironic that you say that as if "socialism" isn't a fact here. Please. People like you view it as evil, and you get to call it by words that evoke some nationalist resentment steming back from Mcarthyism and our cold war against communism. But when push comes to shove, socialist programs tend to be some of the most popular programs in the US. Ever wonder why politicans, even ones who believe as you do don't try to get rid of medicare, medicaid, social security, public hospitals, public schools, head start programs, trash removal, clean water, road construction... It's because they wouldn't be politicans for very long. Once you get past your rhetoric, those socialist programs are pretty darn popular. What's more I submit to you that the founding principle of our country is "what the majority of people want over time they get. " In fact, I'd sugest that your looking at the place where you live might be productive. Perhaps more important than the country, maybe the date. It's not the early 1800's any more.

[Art]

Kurp,

I appreciate your entry into the conversation. A few points are worth commenting upon. First, it's clear, that while one liberal may be defending another, neither liberal is willing to answer the question.

So, I'll ask you again. I get that "you" don't need a tax cut as much as you'd like it. But, assuming there is a tax cut, should the top 50 percent of taxpayers who pay 96 percent of federal income taxes receive 96 percent of any federal income tax reduction? It's not even that hard a question.

The typical liberal dodge is certainly glaring here though. Why can't you guys answer this very simple question. I KNOW you don't want a tax cut. I know you can live just fine without one. But, assuming one is there, who should get the money. People paying taxes or people NOT paying taxes. Why won't someone from the left step up and answer the question?

Now, that snit out of the way, let me answer a couple of your comments directly.

"I'm not sure gbear deserves the moniker of socialist. Now I'm sure the first thought that comes to you is, "What do you expect? One liberal defending another." I don't like labels so you won't see me painting "conservative" on anyone's forehead when their views disagree with mine."

I am a conservative. I talk conservative. I walk conservative. It's not a label to paint me as a conservative. It's truth. It's not offensive to me. It's not a bad thing. Gbear certainly appears to be a socialist. He certainly appears to ascribe to a theory of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Is this label a bad thing, regardless of how true it is? In my world, it's a terribly bad thing. There are few worse things one can be, in my world, than a socialist living in a country founded upon directly differing principles of economic guidelines.

Now, the conversation you are having in defending Gbear here is nice. But, none of it is remotely to the point, whatsoever. I asked a specifically pointed question in the hope that a similarly pointed answer would be had without having liberal dogma as the only response to this point.

Yes, I know we're sacrificing our children for the present.

Yes, I know we're giving a tax cut to the rich.

Yes, I know allowing people to keep their money is bad policy.

Yes, I know cutting deficits excludes cutting spending.

Yes, I know. I know. I know.

And the reason I hoped to craft a specific question for a specific discussion is because I wondered what the answers would be since I know the rest of it, just as you know the rest of it from me, but what I don't know is whether you, and other liberals, think people who pay federal income taxes should get their money back if there's a tax cut, or whether you feel that money should be distributed to people who are not paying taxes at present.

I think I know what your answer is, and that's why the socialist label is fitting.

I don't know that it's worth getting into your specific defense of Gbear's issues, because, to be totally honest, I'm efforting at ignoring anything that doesn't answer the question I've asked because it is fascinating to me to see how long it takes before a simple question can receive an answer.

But, because you and I have largely not been at each other's throats on these boards -- at least not since I described how war with Afghanistan would take place and was correct in my characterization and had to listen to you brand me heartless (the smilie is a joke, btw) -- I will try to briefly answer your defense of Gbear.

No Republican in the world begrudges spending federal tax dollars on education for our nation's children. Hell, by in large, studies show Republicans to be substantially better educated and people who earn more, therefore, you can be certain we do appreciate the value of a good education. The question is when's enough enough? When do federal tax dollars continue to get poured into failing school systems before someone realizes that there's plenty of money in the schools, but the money is going to staffers who don't teach?

At school after school over the last two decades, the number of functionary administrators has doubled and tripled while the school has stayed the same size, with the same number of students. Instead of asking me about the cycle that ends in an uneducated person causing taxpayers more money, why not ask the question about a broken system that guarantees and rewards failure in order to create a society increasingly dependent on government aid in the first place?

Can you and I agree right here, right now, that money should be spent on teachers in the immediate term? You know, Paul Wellstone from Minnesota was seen as a champion of education. In one bill he proposed he wanted to add a billion to hire 141,000 mental health professionals in schools. And when rejected he cried about our failing schools and not having enough teachers, though, he never offered to hire a teacher. Not a single one.

Can you and I say that right now we have all the school admins we need for the next decade and every federal and state tax dollar should be spent increasing our facilities and in hiring new teachers? You get to that point, and you and I have not only saved the school systems, but saved taxpayers money and, better even than that, ended a systematic failure that requires precisely the type of example you've outlined. The policies YOU as liberals support have already gotten us to the point your example illustrates. So, don't ask me if I don't get it. Ask me why you don't.

As to economics, you wrote, "The point gbear is trying to make is that if you look far enough into the proverbial forest, there is a domino effect that reverberates beyond the short-term, or a single person."

This is amusing to me, because, that's the same point I'm making. If you look far enough into the proverbial forest, there is a domino effect that reverberates beyond the short-term, or a single person. Indeed. And, as Kennedy and Reagan showed, you spur the economy by giving money back. You don't tax into an economic slowdown less you want what Bush Sr. got, or, what we had in the great depression.

Indeed, there is a domino effect that reverberates beyond the short-term, or a single person. I gave such an example. If I'm given $20,000 back, I'm hiring out a job on my house. The person I hire may buy a new car or computer. The company he buys from may hire a new salesperson. That salesperson may buy his wife a DVD player. Trickle down economics is classic and true and never, ever, ever, been proven NOT to work. Money flows down, from people who have it, never up, from people who don't.

As for what I'd reduce to cut the deficit, I think I already stated. Numbers provided by the government and published on this page demonstrate that we service the national debt at approximately the same percentage of federal revenue as we pay for social programs. Simply put, cut all social programs. Pay the debt off in 10 years. Each year as you pay off the debt and the percentage points decrease, you simply add a point back to income security programs and there you have it.

You could do this, provide a massive tax cut, which, as proven, will spur the economy because it has each time we've done it in the past, which will actually increase government revenue, and you could have the debt paid off, and shave about 18 percent from existing spending just in the form of interest payments. It's easy .

[Art]

Gbear, as I now see you've bothered to answer the question, let me give this a full and fair hearing.

"Um Art,

Yeah I did say the consumer spending side has been strong and that's been true until recently. Look at Christmas this year with spending rising a meager 0.7% and that's largely attributed to huge sales and specials like Amazon's free shipping. Keep in mind last year wasn't a banner increase either."

Um, Gbear, you only said this after you said initially that the recession we went through and have come out of was caused by a decrease in consumer spending. So, yeah, I KNOW it's taken a turn downward recently, and, oddly, we're not in recession, we've already come through one. And when we were in one, consumption was doing it's thang. So, thanks for recognizing what you've been told.

Fascinating though your thoughts that simple financial incentives like free shipping were largely successful and capable of inspire consumer consumption, and yet giving the 50 percent of people in this nation who pay taxes a tax break would do nothing but be bad policy. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

"Lets look at where it's been strong. Car sales and house sales. Look at where stocks have done all right. Hmm, could it be that with 0 percent financing on cars people actually bought cars? Could it possibly be that people buying actually made our consumer expenditures look decent?"

Yeah, Gbear, people buying stuff is precisely what makes consumer spending look decent. Now, since you've been able to state the obvious, what's your point? Consumer spending has been decent. We still went into recession. You said consumer spending declining is what caused recession. So, you can prove to me all you want that what I and others told you is correct, but you don't really have to. We know it's correct which is why we told you.

Now, that said, you simply are factually incorrect on how relatively strong consumer spending in certain areas has helped prop up stock prices. Since you brought up cars, let's just look at the three year charts for Ford and GM.

Ford

GM

Hey, as it turns out, consumer spending isn't really helping those stocks, is it? It's amazing what simple knowledge of a situation will do for you in this world Gbear. Honest. If you KNEW what you were talking about, I'd feel much better talking with you. Sheesh though man. Why would you let yourself walk into this type of slam against you when you could have just looked up the stock prices yourself? Or, are you just making things up, hoping I don't know differently and won't challenge you on anything?

"Now lets look at where stocks aren't worth spit now. Hmm internet and technology and to some extent manufacturing. Why do you think that might be the case? Could it be that people aren't BUYING?"

Actually, it could be because investors aren't investing. Do you know that? I mean, when an investor invests, the stock moves upward. When he pulls out, the stock moves downward. The reason internet and technology stocks aren't doing well is in part because sales are down and by in large, you, as an individual, aren't the one who's buying from technology and manufacturing and internet firms. Corporations are. Why do you think Dell, as an example, has moved further and further away from the consumer market it came up with and has focused more and more on backend servers and the like? The money is in the corporate spending. Corporate spending drives the economy. Corporate spending drives the markets, as well as huge money from the private sector which can't come from people on welfare.

But, let's look at a good single example that destroys your entire economic theory. Walmart is a store that, by in large, caters to lower income people. So, in your world, a store like Walmart is where a lot of people who'd be given a tax break -- even though they pay no taxes in the first place -- would go to spend their money and this company would just be rocking in the stock market because of it. Well, in 1999 Walmart had sales of $137.5 billion. At the end of the last fiscal year, 2002, Walmart had sales of $217.5 billion. So, right through the recession Walmart soared in sales. And over that same period the stock price has fallen.

So, when you are over a simple and ineffective one for one ratio between poor people -- or any people really -- spending as an economic certainty for success, please consider that in our history every time we've had a massive tax cut, we spurred the economy, investment, consumer spending and government revenue. My side is looking awfully good here.

"Now you might argue that people and businesses aren't buying for particular reasons. Fine. The one I hear most often is surplus inventory. I wonder how one gets a surplus inventory. Oh wait, I know. I bet it's when people don't buy. DO you think it might be possible that stock prices go down when companies don't show a profit because investment chases a profit. Again I ask how does one get a profit without consumer spending?"

Well, Cisco, as an example, had one quarter where it wrote of some $4 billion in surplus inventory. And, do you know that not a single piece of that inventory is sold to the general public? It's all sold to corporations. Yes, business stopped spending, and that led to a recession and the consumer out there kept spending right on through it. Only now that the recession is behind us and we have a growing economy is consumer spending down. Sentiment is down because of the stock market's inability to shake the bear. You want sentiment to go up? How about you float an idea where no dividends on corporate profits will be taxed. NOTHING good could come from this. I mean it's not like Microsoft will ever dip into it's $40 billion in the bank and offer a dividend or anything. Oh, hell, bad example, eh?

It's funny, isn't it, that a single Republican idea like Bush's idea to cut the double taxation of dividends has caused the IMMEDIATE release of $856 million into the economy in the form of a dividend from one company. Further, on Sat. Jan. 18, Microsoft announced their plans to put almost a billion into the economy in tax free dividends and on Monday, the first trading day after the announcement, Microsoft saw 80 million shares traded, some 31 million more shares than normal, and every day since the volume has been up, and this is DESPITE the fact that many investors who would be new to Microsoft are staying away until after the announced split since they are passed the date of buy in to get split benefits.

Remarkable. How many DVD players from welfare recipients is necessary to match what Bush has already done?

"None of the housing and car sales influences my arguement. The economy is still better served by putting the money in the hands of those who will spend it. Nothing I have said contradicts that."

Nothing you have said actually explains who spends that. And, people who have money, do spend it. Honest. Ask Patrick Ewing about his bills . That's a joke, but, it is just criminally laughable for you to keep spouting that poor people spend more than rich people. Though you haven't bothered to define rich, I can assure you, if you cut my taxes, the money is buying me a car, or a patio, or a deck, or my wife's Ann Taylor clothing, and a batch of Microsoft stock.

"Socialist? Somewhat. I don't run from petty labels. What's more, I don't think an idea is bad because you can label it something you don't like."

No, an idea is bad because in practice it has failed everywhere it's been tried. You have some success in socialist nations that don't have to provide a military for their country, but otherwise, the idea of socialism is proven to be a poor one because it has failed in every real world example its application. Further, I wouldn't expect you to run from what you are. If you had, I'd have been disappointed.

"By the way as a side issue, the USSR was not socialist."

Fascinating. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R) was not socialist? Someone call Ripley because I belive it not. Saying the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- note the word Socialist in the name of the nation -- wasn't socialist based on the perfection of Marx is a lot like saying we're not a capitalistic society based the perfection of Rand. Gbear, trust me when I tell you, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was, absolutely, socialist. Kurp may have a point on the quality of education in this country afterall.

"Read up on some socialist theory according to Marx."

Read up on what the U.S.S.R. stands for.

"I've given concrete logic and been able to follow it up with examples."

You've given fabricated evidence proven flawed, incorrect and most likely made up.

"On your side of the arguement, I've heard references to graphs with shoddy assumptions."

I understand. Stock charts are shoddy as hell . Of course, nothing is as concrete as assuming your econ professor in college knew everything. I mean, boy, you got me there. Ignore the facts. Mr. Simon says something else.

"I've seen you desparage actually learning something in college. I've seen you call me a socialist (the only thing I've mildly agreed with)."

No, I have disparaged actually believing something in college. You can learn a lot. The first thing to learn is you are being indoctrinated. The second thing to learn is you are being indoctrinated. The third thing to learn is reality is far different from the education incubator. I learned a lot in college. I just came out of it knowing the truth and you haven't discovered it yet. You will. Likely you'll discover it as you realize you've shown so much poor information, almost all of which remains factually incorrect, that you may question the strength of your beliefs based on the fault of your facts. Perhaps not today. But, one day.

"Rising tide lifts all boats. .. I couldn't agree more. That's why I cringe at you trying to lift the boats instead of waiting for the tide. The tide is the economy going through it's normal ups and downs. The tide is consumer spending. A tax break to the rich is trying to lift the boats above water level. It's doable and it might work, but you can't seriously think it's the easiest way to lift a boat."

Kennedy provided a tax break that lifted all boats. So did Reagan. Providing people who have money and make money the money they pay in in the form of taxes is the easiest way to lift a boat. There's actual proof on my side. The facts are that when we've cut taxes in this country, we've improved. When we've raised taxes, especially into a slower economy, we hit a bad patch.

"Fair. I said we'd end up in a different debate with this, but if you insist. I think it's perfectly fair for the rich to pay more percentage wise."

I'm certain you do and as I said in the opening, I'm not asking about a flat tax here. I realize you believe in punative taxes for people who have the gall to have money. You are a socialist, as you've admitted. This is not surprising to me.

"They benefit more from the government."

Toto, there's no place like home. Gbear, you've just gone off the deep end man. "Rich" people benefit more from the government than poor people? This is hysterical. Rich people don't get anything from the government. Truly rich people send their kids to private schools. They don't receive public financing. They don't receive welfare. They don't benefit from the government at all. In fact, the rich provide the financing to allow for people who have less to benefit from many government programs. You'd have to be an utter idiot to believe the statement you've made is even partially true. NO ONE thinks the rich benefit more from the government than the poor. Even devoted socialists know the rich provide government for the poor.

"Given that as a premise, I'm still fine with saying it's fair for the poor to get more than 4% of the tax break. What's more, I'm confident in saying that if the top 5% of the wage earners only get 10% of the tax break (despite the percentage paid), they'll actually see there purchasing power increase by more than the 10% of the tax cut. They'll get the 10% of the tax cut back plus the effect of the rising tide. That's the forest you're missing."

The forest you're missing is that every time we've cut taxes in this country we've improved our situation economically. We've increased government revenue. We've been able to more greatly fund government programs you are likely for. A tax cut can only be given to people who pay taxes. Anything else is criminal. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor certainly appeals to you, obviously, Gbear.

But, that you openly support redistributing my money to a poor person simply means you're in the wrong country brother. What you want to do is take something from me and give it to someone else. You just don't have the guts to actually stick me up with a gun. I'd respect you for having the guts to do that. Instead, you simply create fiction to justify a premise that there's a forest behind your argument. There's a wasteland behind your tree, brother.

"What I don't get is your continued assumption that investment automatically causes consumption."

I've never stated that to be the case. It is true that investment spurs consumption because investment lifts stock prices allowing corporations, which do drive the economy, to spend money. That spending eventually trickles down to the individual consumer.

"I've given example after example where that's not true."

Actually, you haven't at all. You've not given a single example of where increased investment hasn't spurred consumption. You have given examples of where consumption hasn't spurred investment, though. Congrats on proving negative your point.

As you've proven, consumer spending on cars has been good. As I've shown, consumer spending at Walmart has been great. Yet, investment in both is down. Sorry, but, you're the one who cornered yourself with the stupidity here. I'm just focusing you on the lack of information you actually seem to have.

"Please give some examples where increased consumption has failed to bring investment?"

Already have. Walmart. The auto industry. How about energy? Calpine went from 2 billion to 7 billion between 2000 and 2001 in consumption. The stock has now fallen from 55 to 3. There are countless, endless, unyielding examples of consumption failing to spur investment. But, thanks for asking.

"If you want to buy it enough to pay for it, somebody will produce it. Odd that a "socialist" has to mention that basic tenet of free markets."

Odd that a socialist clearly doesn't understand the basics well enough to get anything he said right. .

[Art]

Gbear, reply within, again.

"Oh and by the way, separation of church and state is one of our founding principles. Atleast that's what the courts have decided."

Do you mean courts with judges who weren't alive when we were founded have come up with one of our founding principles? Remarkable. I didn't realize you were so in touch with the situation. We were founded by religious men who sent their kids to religious schools.

"If you're going to lecture me on founding principles, forgive me if I take the courts interpretations over yours. I'm vaguely aware of the debate over it, but as of right now, I believe the arguements are based on what wasn't said and how it wasn't said. LIek you said, perhaps a topic for another thread."

Gbear, I'd NEVER ask you to pay attention to my point of view instead of one of our honorable courts. But, how about you read the First Amendment and tell me how, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....", in any way means a founding principle was to prohibit government and church from mixing in any way?

How about you just read the damn Constitution? Is that too much to ask? Don't pay attention to me. Pay attention to the words, "OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" means we should prohibit the free exercise of religion in any case in which the government is even remotely involved? I just read the First Amendment again, and darn, but I see "Congress" not "The courts" as the opening. What do you see? Are you actually so dim that you honestly believe it's compelling to me to hear you say a court that wasn't alive when the Constitution was written knows what our founding principles are?

The Constitution isn't a complex document. The free exercise of religion can never be prohibited. That's what the founding principle is. The word separation doesn't exist. The principle that the government can not establish a religion is the principle by which we live under. Have you ever heard of this country being founded for religious freedom? Is that a class you missed in school? We are a religiously free country and the government has no place picking any religion over another. It also has NO place prohibiting the free exercise of religion in any forum or setting.

Tell me you are blind to the words of the actual founding principles we adopted. I beg of you only that you don't pay attention to me. You pay attention to the Constitution. If, tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the ruling your court made, would that, then, be a founding principle? Or would that be a conservative court altering a liberal court? The principle is as clear as the words in the First Amendment. It doesn't change as courts jockey for primacy. Our principle is of religious freedom and the inability of government to say, "Kids, you can't put religious symbols on our Columbine mural because there's a separation of church and state." You just violated that person's rights. You just violated our Constitution. You just broke with our founding principles.

"Point #2: You made a big point of saying take a look at where I live and the principles here as if to say I might be less patriotic for being "socialist.""

Gbear, simply put, you are less patriotic for saying you're a socialist because that's not what our country was founded on. Our economic principles are different than socialism. You can't express love for one's country while at the same time expressing disdain for the economic principles that created the nation. I have no doubt you believe you are every bit as patriotic as I may be, or others might be. But, you aren't. You don't like what America is, so you want it to be something else. That, in itself, can be expressed with love. You can love the fact that here you have the right to be against American values and no one will immediately stop you. But, you are no patriot.

"Well, on one hand it seems odd that I'm the one espousing letting the free market decide where investment goes."

That's not one bit what you're espousing. You're espousing taking money from me and handing it to someone else. Do you even know what a free market is? I can tell you what it isn't. It ISN'T the redistribution of wealth. It isn't a free market belief to believe his money should be your money. Do you even understand the words you are using?

"On the other hand I find it ironic that you say that as if "socialism" isn't a fact here."

I didn't say socialism isn't a fact here. It is a fact. A sad, desperately weak, misguided, uninformed fact. It's just not what we were founded believing was right and appropriate.

"Please. People like you view it as evil, and you get to call it by words that evoke some nationalist resentment steming back from Mcarthyism and our cold war against communism."

It IS evil, Gbear, to think what's mine is yours. And what's his, is that guy's. That's evil. That's, simply put, looking covetously upon one's neighbor. It is evil to want something of mine in such a way as you feel it's RIGHT to steal from me to give to you. It's not right, Gbear. It's as wrong as it gets.

"But when push comes to shove, socialist programs tend to be some of the most popular programs in the US. Ever wonder why politicans, even ones who believe as you do don't try to get rid of medicare, medicaid, social security, public hospitals, public schools, head start programs, trash removal, clean water, road construction... It's because they wouldn't be politicans for very long."

Yes and no. Medicare, medicaid, social security are among items we have no business funding as a federal government. Before 1965 when medicare came out, people weren't desperate and dying were they? Obviously, as medical technology has improved lives expand, but, federally sponsored programs such as these are fundamentally opposite the ideals of our nation.

They are, yet, tangible and real. It is much easier to give something to a person than to take something away. It is much easier to create a dependence upon the government than to expect people to be responsible for themselves. The fact that these programs exist doesn't make them right for who we should be as a nation. It makes us expedient. Politicians are careerists now. No longer are they citizens serving the public before going back into the world. They are careerists and that has led to the downfall of many of our founding beliefs. You're right, you won't get a career politician telling people they have to be responsible for their future. That's a foreign concept in this country. Now, you're taught you are entitled to something from the government. Sad indeed that it is true.

"Once you get past your rhetoric, those socialist programs are pretty darn popular. What's more I submit to you that the founding principle of our country is "what the majority of people want over time they get. " In fact, I'd sugest that your looking at the place where you live might be productive. Perhaps more important than the country, maybe the date. It's not the early 1800's any more."

Socialist programs are not, legitimately, popular. They are, however, interwoven into the fabric of our society now. Sadly you can't say, "Social security needs to end." You can't propose letting workers keep their money to spend as they wish. Because now, people have had so much taken for so long, they wouldn't be able to survive in retirement. You could, perhaps, say, anyone under 30 will be refunded anything they put into SS and going forward they will be responsible for their own retirement security. That may well be a wildly popular idea.

But, as with most socialist programs in this country, you pray on the unintelligent and helpless to validate your stances. You can't prove to me that it's a good idea to do nothing with social security while it makes less than one percent interest. You can prove to someone that allowing that same money to invest in government bonds or even a simple 4 percent money market is superior to what we have now. But, it takes too long to explain to a simpleton that 4 is greater than 1, because all they see is Enron. They don't understand that it's as private as you want. You can invest it in a savings account. You can put it in a guaranteed bond. You can put it in Enron. It's YOUR money. The great success of the liberal is convincing people they are incapable of being responsible for themselves and thereby creating a dependence on the increasing appetite of government.

Too rarely is the liberal belief thoughtful, as you've shown tonight. Too often the liberal idea is simply big words that strike a cord. "Tax cut for the rich" without defining what rich is. "We need to save our schools" without saying we need to hire teachers now, first and immediately. "The rich benefit from government more than the poor" without, seemingly, having a clue in the world. The liberal stance is the easy one to grasp. It requires no thought. It just requires slogans and people like slogans. Hell, we have a professional military. We don't have a draft at all. And yet idiot liberals are screeching, "Hell no we won't go" about the war in Iraq, as if anyone's asking them to.

There is a reason the conservative is generally more wealthy and better educated on average. That person is generally more thoughtful. He understands the layers behind the slogans and as good as a slogan sounds, "It's for our kids" afterall, there's usually far too much more that makes something else better, but, we lack the easy prey .

Generally, I find the general liberal very stupid. I've spoken with some of the smartest men in my life, my father included, and I couldn't help but be struck by just how shallow his views were. You, on the other hand, seem to be a true liberal. Where that is equally dim, you don't believe in something else while saying you're a liberal. You really are. That, if nothing else, is a good trait you have.

[fansince62]

while I'm not as fixed as Art is in respect to what my obligations as a taxpaying citizen are.........I have to admit his core concept is one that has occupied a lot of my attention:

1) You gotta make money to pay taxes. kinda obvious. the more you make, the more you pay (loop-holes notwithstanding).

2) You work to make money or you risk wealth (i.e., invest). Tax me and I'm working for the government. In some Ricardian sense (more so as we move to a service economy) the government is expropriating my labor.

3) Forget about the insanely rich who founded their own enterprises or live in Hollywood. You tax me and you are taking away income that I could use to develop my family, my children or whatever choice I make as an individual exercising my freedoms.

Gbear...the real approach you should be taking and it is a viable one...is to discuss what the "social contract" really means. What the safety net ought to be. What we owe for fundamental services that only government can provide. This can justify a hefty chunk of income transfers. Beyond that...it gets to be an ethical argument over the level of obligation we have to our fellow citizens who are less fortunate and whether that obligation is honored through government enforced transfers or individual charity. These are super tough issues and they lie at the heart of the differences between the left and the right.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

The typical liberal dodge is certainly glaring here though. Why can't you guys answer this very simple question. I KNOW you don't want a tax cut. I know you can live just fine without one. But, assuming one is there, who should get the money. People paying taxes or people NOT paying taxes. Why won't someone from the left step up and answer the question?

[/Quote]

Perhaps the question you've asked is too broad in scope. Perhaps a "yes" or "no" answer from some of us would lead to a misleading conclusion.

If I understand you correctly, anyone whose income is over $27,000 is rich, and anyone making less is poor.

I don't know enough about the specifics of the proposed tax cuts, other than the elimination of taxes on dividends (which I happen to support) to argue definitively one way or the other.

But if all else is equal, there's a hell of a difference between a 10% tax cut for someone making $27K, and someone who makes $270K. I'd venture to say that a person who gets a tax refund of $2700 is likely to spend it all since there's no doubt a long laundry list of "need" items. On the other hand, someone who gets back $27,000, well, what are they going to to with the money? I tend to doubt that they'd go out and spend it all. My guess is that much of it will wind up in some tax-deferred account collecting interest.

And I guess therein lies the crux of the debate, no? Which is better for the economy, spending or saving?

Here's where I'm way in over my head and the reason I should have just stayed out of this topic. From this point on I'll be respectful of those who are far more versed on economics than I and try to learn something.

I guess what sometimes prompts me to jump in the middle of a debate is the overuse of labels in responding to someone's point. Labels are too easy. I guess one might label me a liberal but the funny thing is, I've never read the "Liberal Manifesto". When people say "liberal thinking" I wonder how I got this way? Does someone wave a wand over you at birth and program you to think one way over the other? Does it mean I'll never have a conservative thought? Is it genetic? Does the "liberal" tag apply if my thoughts are 51% liberal and 49% conservative?

Labeling someone certainly makes for an easier debate though, I must agree. Rather than waiting to hear or read someone's view on a particular topic, if you've already categorized their beliefs then you are already armed with a counter-point before they've even revealed their thoughts.

Perhaps if you simply said in response to a particular point, "That's liberal thinking", or "That's a socialist's view", I might not take such umbrage. But when you call someone a liberal, socialist, conservative, communist, or whatever, are you not doing them a disservice by not giving them credit for having thoughts and ideas that might fall outside of those categories?

You're an admitted conservative, fine. I'll pick up a book on how conservatives think and what they believe and then I should know all there is to know about you, right?

Peace out.

[Art]

Kurp, let me reply within on this one.

"Perhaps the question you've asked is too broad in scope. Perhaps a "yes" or "no" answer from some of us would lead to a misleading conclusion."

All I can say to this is, "The typical liberal dodge is certainly glaring here though. Why can't you guys answer this very simple question. I KNOW you don't want a tax cut. I know you can live just fine without one. But, assuming one is there, who should get the money. People paying taxes or people NOT paying taxes. Why won't someone from the left step up and answer the question?"

This isn't a too broad a scope question in the slightest. It's the most simple question in the world. It's clear and specific. There's no breadth to it whatsoever. The question is, if there is a tax cut, should the tax relief go to people who pay taxes or should it go to people who don't pay taxes? Should the 50 percent of society who pay 96 percent of all federal income tax receive 96 percent of any tax relief there is? Yes or no is PRECISELY accurate.

Put it another way. If you drop your wallet on the street and someone picks it up. Should he return it to you, or should he disperse the contents to the neighborhood? Same principle. The question is being asked to discover whether it's fundamentally true to liberals that in order to receive a tax cut one must actually pay tax. Whether it's true that a person NOT paying tax can receive a tax break. Understand now, a person who pays no federal income tax, I want to know if THAT person can receive a tax cut. Or, if the only people who can receive a cut in taxes are people who actually pay taxes. Can you answer the question?

"If I understand you correctly, anyone whose income is over $27,000 is rich, and anyone making less is poor."

I don't know what the definition of "rich" is anymore. If being among the top 50 percent of people who pay 96 percent of the federal tax burden makes you "rich" then you are rich making $27,000. But, so you understand more clearly, anyone whose income is over $27,000 pays 96 percent of the American federal income tax burden. Anyone who's making less pays 4 percent of the total.

"I don't know enough about the specifics of the proposed tax cuts, other than the elimination of taxes on dividends (which I happen to support) to argue definitively one way or the other."

This is certainly compelling, Kurp. You support the dividend tax cut. As do I. As, really, do most. But, you can only cut the tax on dividends for people who have stocks or will buy stocks that pay dividends, right? Is that true? The ONLY people who can receive a dividend tax break or people who have, or could purchase, stocks that pay dividends. If that's true, apply that to the question I've asked above. Who can receive a tax break? People who pay tax, or people who don't? Same answer.

For the record, the dividend tax cut is less beefy than the acceleration of ALREADY passed legislation cutting taxes and increasing child benefits or erasing the marriage penalty. The beef behind Bush's plan is really an acceleration of already approved tax breaks to the near term. The dividend tax break is simply flair. It's simply an effort to get the bull to leave the bear. And, as demonstrated, it has the capacity to work with Microsoft immediately stepping up.

"But if all else is equal, there's a hell of a difference between a 10% tax cut for someone making $27K, and someone who makes $270K. I'd venture to say that a person who gets a tax refund of $2700 is likely to spend it all since there's no doubt a long laundry list of "need" items. On the other hand, someone who gets back $27,000, well, what are they going to to with the money? I tend to doubt that they'd go out and spend it all. My guess is that much of it will wind up in some tax-deferred account collecting interest."

To be fair, we are talking about all things being equal. We're talking about cutting the tax rate of every American taxpayer. Every single person who pays taxes will have their tax burden lessened. Of course, only 50 percent of the people really have any benefit at all. Afterall, they are already forced to pay 96 percent of the burden. It is simplistic and, in fact, frighteningly misplaced to view people who make less as spending more. This is so classically backward I don't know, truthfully, how to respond.

I've already described where I'd put a $20,000 tax cut. I'd improve my house, buy some Microsoft shares, or perhaps buy a new car. My money would cause the hire of a new employee, or the purchase of a new computer, or a dinner out with a wife, or all of the above, for people who are not me. My "need" items are no less compelling than the "need" items of a person who makes less. I simply have the ability to spend more to drive the economy better.

But, despite what is a fatal flaw in the contention here that somehow poor people spend more, the fact is, investment in a tax-deferred account just as you speak of is actually working for the economy too. Putting money in a bank allows more loans. Putting money in the stock or bond market allows greater investment, improved stock prices, and a period of growth. As we know, a poor person may spend a lot of his tax cut at Walmart and that consumption is meaningless for moving investment. Investment moves investment. Encouraging people who invest to invest is what improves investment. So, since the economy is already growing, and the stock market is shaky, encouraging investment seems satisfactory and if a person takes $27,000 out of the pockets of government and actually PUTS IT INTO the stock market, just as you've described, this world is immediately a better place.

No matter though, the essential question remains. If 50 percent pay 96 percent, should the 50 percent receive 96 percent of any relief?

"And I guess therein lies the crux of the debate, no? Which is better for the economy, spending or saving?"

Well, uh, no. The crux of the debate is, can you give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes? Is it possible by the definition of the words to relieve the tax burden of someone who doesn't pay taxes? The crux of the debate is, if 50 percent of the nation's taxpayers pay 96 percent of the federal tax burden, should those 50 percent receive 96 percent in any tax cut? That's the crux and, indeed, the whole of the debate.

Now, in your argument, which is a secondary debate you should break out into it's own space, the question is what's better for the economy, spending or investment? I'm betting I have a better answer than you'd think as to what helps, and I'm betting you don't fully appreciate what the spending power of people who have money is. Regardless, though, whether you are of the mind that investment won't help the economy or not, the question at the root here remains. Do you give a tax cut to people who pay tax, or people who don't pay tax? That's pretty much it. You're for a dividend cut for people who have money to have stocks that pay dividends. Can you cut the dividends for people who don't have stocks that pay dividends? Yes or no?

Can you give money back to a person who's not giving it in the first place? Or, can you only give money back to people who actually gave it? That's the crux of the debate.

"Here's where I'm way in over my head and the reason I should have just stayed out of this topic. From this point on I'll be respectful of those who are far more versed on economics than I and try to learn something. I guess what sometimes prompts me to jump in the middle of a debate is the overuse of labels in responding to someone's point. Labels are too easy. I guess one might label me a liberal but the funny thing is, I've never read the "Liberal Manifesto". When people say "liberal thinking" I wonder how I got this way? Does someone wave a wand over you at birth and program you to think one way over the other? Does it mean I'll never have a conservative thought? Is it genetic? Does the "liberal" tag apply if my thoughts are 51% liberal and 49% conservative?"

Kurp, to be fair, I don't know that I've specifically called you a liberal. You have used the term liberal to describe yourself in the rhetorical, "Here's one liberal defending another liberal," statement. But, read carefully and realize that at no point have I, do I believe, specifically branded YOU, yet, as a liberal, though you may be. I have said the typical liberal dodge is not to answer a simple question. The typical liberal dodge is to pretend there's a great deal more behind a simple question and to do as you've done. You have employed the great liberal dodge tactic.

But, simply put, a label is not a negative thing necessarily. A label proper categorizes a person where they are and where they are not. Though I don't believe I've specifically said you are anything at all in particular, I have done so with Gbear, and Gbear confirmed what he was, so, it's not a label to call someone something he is. It's fact. It's truth. It's enlightening.

Many people have aspects of their belief system that may not be strictly conservative even if they are strictly conservative. Many liberals have conservative streaks. Hell, my wife's friend, who's a delegate in Minnesota for the DFL is more conservative than my wife, who says she's conservative. She's one of those, fiscally conservative, socially liberal made up combinations who don't exist, yet feel they are saying something to be that combination.

No matter though. A label isn't easy. A label is hard, because to make a label effective one must prove it is accurate. If one uses a label that is not accurate the strength of the argument falls short. If one touches on an actual label that is appropriate, it allows the "bull" to be sifted through much more easily.

"Labeling someone certainly makes for an easier debate though, I must agree. Rather than waiting to hear or read someone's view on a particular topic, if you've already categorized their beliefs then you are already armed with a counter-point before they've even revealed their thoughts."

Again, labeling is hard. If a person doesn't fit the label, based upon how he expresses himself, it would weaken the stance. Labels simply identify the conversation for what they are. Anyone who thinks tax dollars should be redistributed from people who pay taxes to people who don't pay taxes is a socialist in that belief. If you recognize what you are sometimes it makes you reconsider what you are actually attempting to justify. Other times you embrace that justification because you are what you are.

"Perhaps if you simply said in response to a particular point, "That's liberal thinking", or "That's a socialist's view", I might not take such umbrage. But when you call someone a liberal, socialist, conservative, communist, or whatever, are you not doing them a disservice by not giving them credit for having thoughts and ideas that might fall outside of those categories?"

No, Kurp, because we're not talking about thoughts that fall outside those categories. We're talking about specific categories. Specific thoughts. And, specific admissions from Gbear that he is, in fact, a liberal, socialist, communist or whatever else from the left. We're not talking about his potentially right leaning thought on abortion. Or, hell, we're not talking about my actual more left position on abortion. I am more liberal on some issues than I am conservative, though, at my core I am conservative. Gbear is more liberal at his core than he is conservative, though he may have an occasional right thought once in a while .

But, while you were taking umbrage at Gbear being called what he is, Gbear was saying, "Yeah, that's what I am." And while the words used to describe him are undeniably bad words and those believes are unconfused for the horribly misplaced ones they are for this country, HE doesn't think they are, and he thinks my views are more appropriate for 1800. I am not offended by that characterization. He is offended that being an American socialist is a bad thing. Perhaps that guilt will alter his beliefs one say. Perhaps not.

But, why hide from what is being said here? He wants to take money from one person and give it to another person. That's not liberal or socialistic thought. That IS BEING a socialist. Are you as well, on this issue, or are you not?

"You're an admitted conservative, fine. I'll pick up a book on how conservatives think and what they believe and then I should know all there is to know about you, right?"

You'd no more about me from reading American history than from reading the conservative manifesto as I am conservative without the underlying religious beliefs. I am, though, an American who believes the principles of America are slowly being lost in the weight of slogan-driven socialist causes and too few even realize it.

Trust me when I say that Gbear is not alone in believing my money should be his money. And one day it'll be popular to say that my money should help lift others who make less, so I work for their benefit. That will be a happy day for the popular driven ideas Gbear enjoys. It'll be a sad day for America though.

[gbear]

"that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religous opinions" - THomas Jefferson

IS that enough of a founding father's opinion for you since as you say it wasn't the founding fathers intent. For more historical arguements, check out the study guides at: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm

The people who put that together did far more research than I care to duplicate here.

The car examples I gave were to show that consumption on the whole has been slowly rising but only in a few sectors. It's not wide spread. I point this out because in your posts, it didn't seem like you had much of an idea where the consumption numbers come from. I would also point out that there was a huge increase in car buying after 9-11. You'll note the corresponding stock price increase. Analysts always see short term increases and bid up the prices. Again, that's consumption leading to investment (but as I'll get into in a min, that's a bad measure.). After words, even though consumption was solid over the same period in previous years, the sales weren't continueing to advance as analysts predicted after the surge resulting from 9-11. When companies don't get the expected consumption, the price dropped down. In this case, it was over enthusiastic expectations.

Walmart was another case of overenthusiastic expectations. Just curious, if Walmart sales had dropped, do you think the stock price would have stayed as high as it did? Also, given that Walmart uses just in time shipping, do you think increased consumption at Walmart might have lead to increased orders from walmart to their suppliers? I'd be curious to see how their suppliers did over the same period. IF I get time this weekend, I'll look.

One thing your examples did make me realise is that it's not just consumption. It's got to be increaseing consumption that leads to increased profits.

On a side note, I think a case can be made that our country is overinvested right now and that the last thing we need is more investment money. With 401K plans and a huge dependance on stocks as a way of stashing money, we've seen a huge increase in the price/earnings ratios across the board. Let's just assume for a min that your arguement on the end result is correct (I'm still not sold). Won't the dividend still lead to more investment in stocks. Just because somebody bids up stock prices doesn't mean the business has more money to invest. Afterall, when you buy your microsoft stock, it's not like microsoft ever sees that money. That investment has in no way lead to microsofts profits. All you have done is increase the price earnings ratio. I must have missed how overvalueing stocks helps the economy. For that matter, so did Greenspan.

Issue #3: (this is really too many to respond to in one thread). So because I'm a socialist, I'm not patriotic. Hmmm, I noticed you bashed medicare, medicaid and social security on this board. I haven't seen you bash public education, clean water laws, trash pick up, monopoly regulation, FDA regulation of drugs, drug cmpany claims, or any one of a dozen other "socialist" things our government does. You mean you're a socialist? I wonder how many other socialists there are on this board? I wonder if they realise you've called them unpatriotic too? Sorry, I'm just not going to worry about name calling that only scratches the surface of my beliefs in a tangental way.

Issue #4: USSR was in no way what Marx proposed or believed in. Of course I don't follow Marx very well with my opinion either. Read Marx and then read a history of the USSR. The differences are glaring. I don't care about what the USSR abreviation stands for. It didn't reflect reality. If you want me to defend that assertion, let's make a new topic. I'll even see if I can find my old paper on the topic if you'd like.

[fansince62]

gbear...stay away from Marx! No matter how elegant his sociology - and he was one of the first - it all rests on a fundamentally flawed Ricardian view of value. The system just can't explain concepts like returns to capital, it's social stratification based entirely on economic criteria doesn't capture the complexity of social systems, and it's many predictions (immerization, collapse of capitalism, etc) never came to pass.

[fansince62]

There's a difference between a high PE ratio and a speculative market price. The two are not the same.

[gbear]

Fan since 62,

Doesn't speculative market price when a company reports high sales for a quarter result in higher PE ratios in the next quarter if the trends don't continue? I could be totally wrong on that one.

Just curious, is the arguement about over investment reasonable to anyone but me. I know Greenspan mentioned it about 2 years ago when talking about the tech bubble, but I haven't heard a peep about it since. I did hear the head of the commerece department talk about venture capitalism being way down in Nov at a conference I was at designed to encourage a few venture capitalist foundations to back a few business ideas.

Like I said Fan since 62, I don't espouse to believe MArx's version of socialism. My socialist beliefs pretty much end where I stopped in this thread. I was labeled a socialist for that. So be it. As I said, I suspect even many cnservatives could be labeled socialist under the definition used on me.

Pure socialism has no way for innovation. Marx's socialism requires all resources to already be fully developed and their use maximised. I don't really think that's possible. Thus, his pure socialism is a nonstarter. It's never been tried because it can't be (that's the first arguement among many against the USSR having been a socialist market system). I have on occassion wondered if more productive economies will gradually move towards it as we have. I'm not necessarily for that because I don't want to give up or rapidly slow down technological advance.

That said, there is something to keeping the common man happy and not creating a whole class of disenfranchised people with no hope to move up. There are benefits from the top to social peace and no class warfare. I'm not sure the American dream survives in this day and age without a little help to the bottom of the economic food chain.

[fansince62]

My point was that high PE ratios may actually be justifed by the future earnings that eventually materialize. Speculation may propel PEs to levels that expected earnings don't warrant.

Yes...too much investment can lead to overcapacity (look at all the dark fiber lieing underground at the moment and its impact on telecom); that's investment in real capacity, not speculative ratcheting of stock prices.

[Art]

Reply within, Gbear....

"that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religous opinions" - THomas Jefferson

IS that enough of a founding father's opinion for you since as you say it wasn't the founding fathers intent. For more historical arguements, check out the study guides at: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm"

First off, amen Mr. Jefferson. Secondly, and importantly, Jefferson was in Paris when the Constitution of the United States was ratified. Thirdly, even if Jefferson was not a religious man who believed in religious freedom, the fact is, he's one man and the Constitution is the combined efforts of many men.

The Constitution of the United States is clear. Government shall not establish a religion, and the government shall not do anything at all to prohibit the free exercise of religion. That's EXACTLY what Jefferson is saying above. No man ought to suffer in name, person or effects on account of his religious opinions. Simply put, when you prohibit religious people from expressing their beliefs, you are doing JUST what Jefferson said is inappropriate. James Madison was a champion of government not establishing religion. An event in his life moved him when he saw some Baptist preachers I think in jail because of their religious beliefs differing from that of the state church of England. Madison wanted to assure government could NOT interfere in the affairs of religion. Religion can participate in the marketplace of ideas, however. That was precisely the intention of Jefferson when he mentioned the "wall of separation" to the Danbury Baptists in Boston who were protesting laws of the state limiting their views.

Essentially the Danbury Baptists petitioned Jefferson to help them in their situation as a man who believed government shouldn't make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ. Jefferson responded clearly and without hesitation:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."

Clearly, Jefferson tells the Danbury Baptists that man owes account to none but his faith. That the legislative powers of government reach actions only, not opinions and the legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This wall of separation was a one-way wall. Government couldn't impose itself on religion. That's what the Constitution says. That's what Jefferson says. That's what the Supreme Court in 1947 did and that's not a founding principle. Please note that the President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, closed his letter with kind prayers and wishing the protection of the common Father and Creator of man. This is a very odd statement for a founding father who believed government should not interact with church when he is sending an official response as a government official, don't you think?

"The car examples I gave were to show that consumption on the whole has been slowly rising but only in a few sectors. It's not wide spread. I point this out because in your posts, it didn't seem like you had much of an idea where the consumption numbers come from. I would also point out that there was a huge increase in car buying after 9-11. You'll note the corresponding stock price increase. Analysts always see short term increases and bid up the prices. Again, that's consumption leading to investment (but as I'll get into in a min, that's a bad measure.). After words, even though consumption was solid over the same period in previous years, the sales weren't continueing to advance as analysts predicted after the surge resulting from 9-11. When companies don't get the expected consumption, the price dropped down. In this case, it was over enthusiastic expectations."

Not a word of this addresses the fact that consumption doesn't lead to increased investment, as you now realize. But, I'll comment upon that in the paragraph that states your realization.

"Walmart was another case of overenthusiastic expectations."

Overenthusiastic expectations? Perhaps you missed the numbers there guy. Walmart went from 137.5 to 217.5 billion in sales over this period of time. It not only met expectations, but it shattered them. This is one of the greatest examples of growth despite incredibly large numbers in the history of our nation. Walmart destroyed expectations.

"Just curious, if Walmart sales had dropped, do you think the stock price would have stayed as high as it did? Also, given that Walmart uses just in time shipping, do you think increased consumption at Walmart might have lead to increased orders from walmart to their suppliers? I'd be curious to see how their suppliers did over the same period. IF I get time this weekend, I'll look."

I have no idea how Walmart's food chain works. I would assume as their growth kept swallowing up other shops, like Kmart, that orders would have been heavier to Walmart while being less heavy for the competitors it destroyed. But, who cares. Walmart enjoyed incredible consumption in the face of recession and came out less than it was. If we were skeet shooting your argument would have been dead at "pull".

"One thing your examples did make me realise is that it's not just consumption. It's got to be increaseing consumption that leads to increased profits."

Let there be light.

"On a side note, I think a case can be made that our country is overinvested right now and that the last thing we need is more investment money. With 401K plans and a huge dependance on stocks as a way of stashing money, we've seen a huge increase in the price/earnings ratios across the board."

This is not a sign of "overinvestment" Gbear. It's a sign, largely, of bad investment. There is still room for downward movement in many stocks, in particular those in technology. People took huge gambles, altering the fundamental method of investing by betting on companies to make it that never could or did. Even those that did were so popular they remain, even with many off 90 percent, overvalued. But, this is, again, not a sign that the market is overinvested. It's a sign that the people who were playing the market during an incredible rise took great gambles that now haven't paid off if they are still holding those cards. Many people are.

"Let's just assume for a min that your arguement on the end result is correct (I'm still not sold). Won't the dividend still lead to more investment in stocks."

The dividend tax cut creates a new market. It creates a market that moves away from stock price to leverage acquisitions and mergers and goes back to cash producing firms who can pay that money to shareholders. It would, at its heart, slash prices in companies that don't have cash to pay and put that money into companies that do.

"Just because somebody bids up stock prices doesn't mean the business has more money to invest."

That's entirely untrue. A company's stock price is leverage for investment in goods, services, mergers, whatever.

"Afterall, when you buy your microsoft stock, it's not like microsoft ever sees that money. That investment has in no way lead to microsofts profits. All you have done is increase the price earnings ratio. I must have missed how overvalueing stocks helps the economy. For that matter so did Greenspan."

We currently have many sectors where there's immense overvalue. And changing the principles of investing toward companies with positive cash flow alter the concepts behind investment for many investors. And, for the record, Microsoft does see the money that stems from its stock price. That value factors into corporate value and weight. Stock price, alone, as an example, allowed AOL to swallow up a company many times more valuable in Time Warner.

"Issue #3: (this is really too many to respond to in one thread). So because I'm a socialist, I'm not patriotic."

Correct. One can not love one's country while hating what it is. One can love one's country while hating what it is starting to become though .

"Hmmm, I noticed you bashed medicare, medicaid and social security on this board."

I haven't bashed medicare or medicaid or social security on this board. I have said the federal government has no business providing those programs for people. People have the responsibility of providing those types of services for themselves. States may have the obligation. The Federal Government does not.

"I haven't seen you bash public education, clean water laws, trash pick up, monopoly regulation, FDA regulation of drugs, drug cmpany claims, or any one of a dozen other "socialist" things our government does. You mean you're a socialist?"

Uh, if you haven't seen me bash education, you haven't been watching. As for clean water laws, monopoly regulation, FDA regulation of drugs, whatever, I'm all for that. That's PRECISELY where the government is necessary. The government can make laws for industry to follow. That's the government's function. It's cheap to write down a law. It saves lives if the law is crafted to protect the public from over aggressive coroprations. The government should regulate. That's an essential part of what it is created to do. Whether I happen to agree with all or none or just some of what it may legislate, I'm certainly not going to say it shouldn't make laws to regulate industry. That'd be idiotic. It'd be similar to equating this paragraph into saying someone's a socialist. But, perhaps I only say that because I clearly know what the word means and you apparently don't, despite agreeing you are one.

"I wonder how many other socialists there are on this board? I wonder if they realise you've called them unpatriotic too? Sorry, I'm just not going to worry about name calling that only scratches the surface of my beliefs in a tangental way."

I hope not many would fall into this category. But, for those that do, I'm saying the same thing to them, yes.

"Issue #4: USSR was in no way what Marx proposed or believed in."

Yawn. America is a capitalistic society and yet isn't a perfect capitalistic society. I'm certain the Socialist states of the Soviet Union were not perfect Marxists either. They were communists and socialists and so was Marx.

"Of course I don't follow Marx very well with my opinion either. Read Marx and then read a history of the USSR. The differences are glaring."

The differences are not glaring. Lenin happened to be an imperialist basing government on Marxist principles. But, please don't pretend that the dozens of real-world examples of Marxism applied to state rule don't exist because there lacked a word for word following.

"I don't care about what the USSR abreviation stands for. It didn't reflect reality. If you want me to defend that assertion, let's make a new topic. I'll even see if I can find my old paper on the topic if you'd like."

You'd better make a new topic to explain how the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist in nature. That'd be really wise.

[gbear]

A quote from you: "Government shall not establish a religion, and the government shall not do anything at all to prohibit the free exercise of religion. "

But it's okay to give money to one religion over another? That money could then be used to build a church or gather a congregation. Would you have a problem with that? Now the government can give money to a church in the name of helping their charities. IF the church only gives the money to members of their faith, isn't everyone else suffering for not being of their faith, you know the one the federal government funded? That doesn't sound like jefferson's quote to me. OR maybe, the church only hires member of their faith. Thus everyone else loses out on job opportunities created by the government, but of course that's not suffering on account of different religous ideaologies is it?

Again, what would Walmarts stock prices have done if the sales hadn't increased? Funny, everytime I hear that a company has failed to reach their profit estimates their stock prices seem to go down. Why is that if the two aren't linked? Your arguement seems to be that actually selling something has nothing to do with peoples willingness to invest. Do you really believe that?

What about the cars? Your charts seemed to go with my arguement atleast until other factors. As the year winds down, it's easier to bargain for cheaper prices on cars. As a result, don't dealers typically make less on their sales at the end of the model year. I could be wrong on that, but I always see lower prices at the end of the model year. Making less profit at the end would explain the decrease in stock value even if sales didn't slow. I haven't looked that up. That'll take more time.

"One can not love one's country while hating what it is."

"I have said the federal government has no business providing those programs for people"

On one hand, you say anyone who disagrees with how things are now is less patriotic. IN the next paragraph you disagree with how things are now. Odd...but typical of republicans who question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them.

[fansince62]

pls find an example where socialist governments have managed to achieve dynamic, innovative economic growth. i refer you to von hayek, von mises, friedman, schumpeter, et al, for a deeper analysis. "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"......