Gates and Obama have connection

[BigPapaVol]

Thankyou both for proving both the lack of sophistication in your own positions and the correctness of mine.

BPV, the issue is who is Peter and who is Paul? If Reagan is in charge, Peter is the lower and middle classes, and Paul are the top earners and wealthiest. The opposite if Obama is in charge.

By definition, both take (relaitve to each other's systems) more from one for the benefit of the other. You call Obama "socialist" because it is a convenient moniker and one that is gaining traction amongst those without either the time or the intellectual horsepower to see the true relationship between the two approaches we are talking about here.

Systemically -- whcih is what socialism is, a system -- there is no difference. Its just who's on the short end of the taxation and distribution map.

Droski, I'd point to every bit of spending on road or other infrastructure projects, being done with government incentives in the stimulus package.

There was a story in the local paper a few months back regarding employment and how one of the projects was to subsidize local governments in the purchase of those little kiosks you see for bus stops, the shelters with the benches. A local company makes those, and as a result of the spending bill they expected to see a big increase in orders and therefore the need to hire a few dozen people.

Technically speaking, the increased taxation of the wealthiest to provide those incentives is socialist because it is based on taking money from one sector and providing it, albeit indirectly, to another sector.

But, it has the effect of enriching the owners and investors in that company. And of course in resulting spending and increased revenues for state and federal governments, both for the company and the new workers.

When Reagan was president and reduced taxes on the wealthy, but increased them on the middle class, he used some of that money to fund defense contractors (who were his political supporters). Technically speaking, that is just as socialist as the stimulus spending by Obama because it represents taking from one class and giving it, again indirectly, to another sector.

As in the case of the kiosk company, it has the effect of increasing revenues for the defense contractor and its investors. And it results in an increase in tax base for state and federal governments. But it is still, by definition, "socialist."

Its just a question of where you are taking it and where you are putting it.

What pisses me off to no end is that the wealthiest (and those that make a living by serving them, i.e. investment advisers like yourself) scream "socialist" at Obama without comprehending (or worse, intentionally ignoring) what that really means and how its just the shoe now on the other foot.

Obama is no more a socialist than Reagan was or Bush was. You just don't like who is getting the shorter end of the stick this time around.

This argument blows up from stupidity very early. To pretend tHat there is some point at which more is taken from the broke and freeloading is absolute fantasy. To further pretend that you're somehow being sophisticated is just the dumbass byline of the northeaster liberal elite. That doesn't make it even remotely correct.

By the by, this same sophisticated argument has been the impetus for the worst economic systems in the history of tHe world. Also spawned silliness like reparations. Those countries providing best fr the broadest swath of their citizenry agree with me about the stupidity of this argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

Thankyou both for proving both the lack of sophistication in your own positions and the correctness of mine.

BPV, the issue is who is Peter and who is Paul? If Reagan is in charge, Peter is the lower and middle classes, and Paul are the top earners and wealthiest. The opposite if Obama is in charge.

By definition, both take (relaitve to each other's systems) more from one for the benefit of the other. You call Obama "socialist" because it is a convenient moniker and one that is gaining traction amongst those without either the time or the intellectual horsepower to see the true relationship between the two approaches we are talking about here.

Systemically -- whcih is what socialism is, a system -- there is no difference. Its just who's on the short end of the taxation and distribution map.

Droski, I'd point to every bit of spending on road or other infrastructure projects, being done with government incentives in the stimulus package.

There was a story in the local paper a few months back regarding employment and how one of the projects was to subsidize local governments in the purchase of those little kiosks you see for bus stops, the shelters with the benches. A local company makes those, and as a result of the spending bill they expected to see a big increase in orders and therefore the need to hire a few dozen people.

Technically speaking, the increased taxation of the wealthiest to provide those incentives is socialist because it is based on taking money from one sector and providing it, albeit indirectly, to another sector.

But, it has the effect of enriching the owners and investors in that company. And of course in resulting spending and increased revenues for state and federal governments, both for the company and the new workers.

When Reagan was president and reduced taxes on the wealthy, but increased them on the middle class, he used some of that money to fund defense contractors (who were his political supporters). Technically speaking, that is just as socialist as the stimulus spending by Obama because it represents taking from one class and giving it, again indirectly, to another sector.

As in the case of the kiosk company, it has the effect of increasing revenues for the defense contractor and its investors. And it results in an increase in tax base for state and federal governments. But it is still, by definition, "socialist."

Its just a question of where you are taking it and where you are putting it.

What pisses me off to no end is that the wealthiest (and those that make a living by serving them, i.e. investment advisers like yourself) scream "socialist" at Obama without comprehending (or worse, intentionally ignoring) what that really means and how its just the shoe now on the other foot.

Obama is no more a socialist than Reagan was or Bush was. You just don't like who is getting the shorter end of the stick this time around.

reagan did not raise taxes on the middle class. what a crock of bs. the middle class had the greatest increase in income in american history since reagan was president and that is no coincidence. and in what way is spending on infrastructure (which was what 10% of the stimiulus?) pro business or free market exactly? by definition infrastructure spending is SOCIAL spending just like spending on education. did you not take econ 101?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

This argument blows up from stupidity very early. To pretend tHat there is some point at which more is taken from the broke and freeloading is absolute fantasy. To further pretend that you're somehow being sophisticated is just the dumbass byline of the northeaster liberal elite. That doesn't make it even remotely correct.

By the by, this same sophisticated argument has been the impetus for the worst economic systems in the history of tHe world. Also spawned silliness like reparations. Those countries providing best fr the broadest swath of their citizenry agree with me about the stupidity of this argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

:hi:

 

[droski]

The problem LG is your theory and other uniformed liberals that the economy is some sort of zero sum game. i.e. the rich benefit therefore hte middle class and poor must be getting screwed. the huge growth in income for the middle class and the poor following reagan's policies directly contradicts such a simplistic view of thew world.

 

[droski]

According to a 1996 study[29] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
In the last year of the Carter Administration (1980) the US inflation rate climbed to a peak of 14.8%, the top individual tax payer rate was 78%, unemployment was 7.4%, federal outlay was 17% higher than the economy's growth rate, and the federal government grew while enacting loads of new spending programs. During this period, the US economy was the worst it had been since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[citation needed] The nation was in quite a deep hole of economic collapse when the new president Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981.[citation needed] Reagan had to devise a constructive, sound tax and monetary policy to pull the US out of its economic low point.[citation needed]

Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981-1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The economic principle that business expansion, jobs and wealth follow low tax rates is widely accepted.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

According to a 1996 study[29] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
In the last year of the Carter Administration (1980) the US inflation rate climbed to a peak of 14.8%, the top individual tax payer rate was 78%, unemployment was 7.4%, federal outlay was 17% higher than the economy's growth rate, and the federal government grew while enacting loads of new spending programs. During this period, the US economy was the worst it had been since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[citation needed] The nation was in quite a deep hole of economic collapse when the new president Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981.[citation needed] Reagan had to devise a constructive, sound tax and monetary policy to pull the US out of its economic low point.[citation needed]

Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981-1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The economic principle that business expansion, jobs and wealth follow low tax rates is widely accepted.

First thing LG will point out.....

 

[lawgator1]

LG, contrary to your leftist beliefs, the rich do not get rich on the backs of poor and middle class people. Nor is it a static dynamic that requires that for one person to be rich, another must be poor.

We know what socialism is. Your continued, futile efforts to deflect this issue as being one of our ignorance is, like BPV said, weak.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lays out with specificity what the Federal Government is empowered to spend taxpayer dollars on.

You, personally, clearly do not.

This argument blows up from stupidity very early. To pretend tHat there is some point at which more is taken from the broke and freeloading is absolute fantasy. To further pretend that you're somehow being sophisticated is just the dumbass byline of the northeaster liberal elite. That doesn't make it even remotely correct.

By the by, this same sophisticated argument has been the impetus for the worst economic systems in the history of tHe world. Also spawned silliness like reparations. Those countries providing best fr the broadest swath of their citizenry agree with me about the stupidity of this argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The problem LG is your theory and other uniformed liberals that the economy is some sort of zero sum game. i.e. the rich benefit therefore hte middle class and poor must be getting screwed. the huge growth in income for the middle class and the poor following reagan's policies directly contradicts such a simplistic view of thew world.

Oh I completely agree that its not a zero sum game and that some of these taxation and distribution processes work better than others. But a lot of that depends on your definition of "work better" and of course timing in terms of the overall economy.

Does it "work better" if it makes the wealthy wealthier? Does it "work better" if it spreads the wealth, so to speak? Now those are easily attacked principles. The wealthy get offended at the accusation that they support taxation plans that make them wealthier, or at least don't tax them as much as they think merited. They call those plans "socialist" when, in reality, they just don't favor that particular scheme of taxation and spending.

Might they be right to oppose it? Sure. First, I don't blame them for wantijng to get wealthier. We all do. Second, in the case of individual programs they may well be correct that the proposed spending is either just pure political reward (hey, the Dems do not have a lock on that) or just plain won't benefit anybody.

Arguing that taxing the wealthiest people results in a decrease in investment and jobs is a perfeclty valid argument. It is logical and empirically proven.

But at the same time, the law of diminishing returns certainly applies to that theory, and there is a point at which the increase in wealth does not translate into anything for the bigger economy. The trick is finding the line and not going too far from it in either direction, right?

What irks me -- and always will -- is using the word "socialist" to mean something it doesn't. "Socialist" is not a proper code word for "this sucks and I think it is economically stupid." Yet that is what it has become.

As I say, there is a lot to be said for the notion that higher taxes on the highest earners has overall bad economic effects. It has its debatable points, but it is a perfectly valid theory. And it has been proven.

But let's call it what it is, which is, in their view, "bad economic policy." That does not mean that it meets the definitioon of "socialist."

It just doesn't and anybody with the foggiest notion of the realationship between government and economy realizes this.

 

[droski]

First thing LG will point out.....

so they made up the numbers? it's a simple look at census information.

 

[CountVolcula]

LG, the more you tax the businesses and take from them the less Capital they will have to expand and create new jobs. Taxing them at a rate of 51%(This number may not be correct) as Obama and Dems would like, is by no means going to solve the economic problems. We fought the American Revolution over a average tax rate of 3%.
The problem the extreme left doesnt see is that the welfare system for the last 70 years has killed this economy. You cannot have a percentage of the population that continues to take, take, and take and not contribute back. Now, before you say I'm a heartless bastard, I think that if you are old, mentally or physically handicapped, or in the military and need some sort of help, I'm all for it. But it is the generations of people that have lived off of Welfare and the government just because they are to sorry and lazy to get a job. Now the Libs want to add, to that growing list of worthless individuals, illegal immigrants. How frickin stupid can the Libs be?

 

[droski]

Does it "work better" if it makes the wealthy wealthier? Does it "work better" if it spreads the wealth, so to speak? Now those are easily attacked principles. The wealthy get offended at the accusation that they support taxation plans that make them wealthier, or at least don't tax them as much as they think merited. They call those plans "socialist" when, in reality, they just don't favor that particular scheme of taxation and spending.

Might they be right to oppose it? Sure. First, I don't blame them for wantijng to get wealthier. We all do. Second, in the case of individual programs they may well be correct that the proposed spending is either just pure political reward (hey, the Dems do not have a lock on that) or just plain won't benefit anybody.

Arguing that taxing the wealthiest people results in a decrease in investment and jobs is a perfeclty valid argument. It is logical and empirically proven.

But at the same time, the law of diminishing returns certainly applies to that theory, and there is a point at which the increase in wealth does not translate into anything for the bigger economy. The trick is finding the line and not going too far from it in either direction, right?

What irks me -- and always will -- is using the word "socialist" to mean something it doesn't. "Socialist" is not a proper code word for "this sucks and I think it is economically stupid." Yet that is what it has become.

As I say, there is a lot to be said for the notion that higher taxes on the highest earners has overall bad economic effects. It has its debatable points, but it is a perfectly valid theory. And it has been proven.

But let's call it what it is, which is, in their view, "bad economic policy." That does not mean that it meets the definitioon of "socialist."

It just doesn't and anybody with the foggiest notion of the realationship between government and economy realizes this.

the following policies you find in self proclaimed socialist countries that you don't find in the united states:

universal healthcare
ridiculous protection of the worker over the company (usually meaning strong unions)
high taxation of the wealthy
high taxation of energy
a far higher rate of the population on the dole and higher benefits

Obama has implemented, or tried to implement, every single of these policies. If he isn't a socialist who the hell is? in other words if his policies are the same as the socialist countries how can you not assume he himself is a socialist?

and the one thing we do know is that last time taxes were at the levels obama wants them to be it caused a massive recession and massive inflation. is that what we need to implement in the middle of a massive recession>

 

[lawgator1]

the following policies you find in self proclaimed socialist countries that you don't find in the united states:

universal healthcare

Obama's plan is not "universal healthcare" in the sense of countries that have socialized medicine. His plan is to expand the availability of insurance to large numbers that don't have it in an effort to improve efficiencies in the system as a whole. The proposed government insurance as an alternative to private insurance is the most significant provision. It does create an incentive to switch to "government insurance," which theoretically undermines the interests of the private insurers.

Who are not happy about that.


ridiculous protection of the worker over the company (usually meaning strong unions)

I agree that strong unions mean a different distribution of profit than where there are weaker unions. I do not agree that you can quanitfy that across countries or economies and therefore reject your claim as unprovable, in either direction.

high taxation of the wealthy

Both the terms "high" and "wealthy" need to be defined. And even if you were right, you'd have to show that higher taxation necessarily means lower standard of living (for the wealth or others) before you could say it was a bad thing.

I realize you make a living helping the wealthy get wealthier. Nothing wrong with that. But you cannot simply assume that higher taxes are always bad.


high taxation of energy

What are the respective rates? Don't the taxation policies have a lot to do with each country's individual resources, infrastructure, and needs? Bad comparison. Too many variables.


a far higher rate of the populatoin on the dole

Probably true.

Obama has implemented, or tried to implement, every single of these policies. If he isn't a socialist who the hell is? in other words if his policies are the same as the socialist countries how can you not assume he himself is a socialist?

See above, but to answer your main question, socialism is, at its core, public ownership of the otherwise private means of production. If your argument is that having the government collect taxes to pool resources and pay for health care is socialism, I would point to the military. I would point to the war in Iraq. I would point to roads. I would point to Medicare. I would point to schools. I would point to NASA.

I would point to the University of Tennessee, which receives tax dollars taken from some to pay for the education of others.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

See above, but to answer your main question, socialism is, at its core, public ownership of the otherwise private means of production. If your argument is that having the government collect taxes to pool resources and pay for health care is socialism, I would point to the military. I would point to the war in Iraq. I would point to roads. I would point to Medicare. I would point to schools. I would point to NASA.

I would point to the University of Tennessee, which receives tax dollars taken from some to pay for the education of others.

There is this beautiful document called the constitution which outlines the role of government.

You ought to read it some time!

:hi:

 

[droski]

"Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care."

How is this not what obama is proposing?

I agree that strong unions mean a different distribution of profit than where there are weaker unions. I do not agree that you can quanitfy that across countries or economies and therefore reject your claim as unprovable, in either direction.

ridiculous. in france you can't even fire anyone, you can't work over 40 hours a week, and you get a mandatory 4 weeks of vacation. they have similar laws in canada and eastern europe.

Both the terms "high" and "wealthy" need to be defined. And even if you were right, you'd have to show that higher taxation necessarily means lower standard of living (for the wealth or others) before you could say it was a bad thing.

I realize you make a living helping the wealthy get wealthier. Nothing wrong with that. But you cannot simply assume that higher taxes are always bad.

I quantify that as higher than average taxes which socialized countries definetly have. A look at comparable standards of living, median income, and the unemployment rates at socialized countries compared ot non socialized countries proves that high taxation is "always bad."

What are the respective rates? Don't the taxation policies have a lot to do with each country's individual resources, infrastructure, and needs? Bad comparison. Too many variables.

Try buying gas for under $5 a gallon anywhere in europe. I very much doubt that our oil costs are lower than those countries.

See above, but to answer your main question, socialism is, at its core, public ownership of the otherwise private means of production. If your argument is that having the government collect taxes to pool resources and pay for health care is socialism, I would point to the military. I would point to the war in Iraq. I would point to roads. I would point to Medicare. I would point to schools. I would point to NASA.

medicare is socialism and has been horrible for this country. as for the military and roads and schools these are required and essential services for a free market economy. i don't see the relavance of iraq. nasa has returned 10 fold the cost with new products and revenues (healthcare doesn't return anything economically).

 

[MG1968]

You, personally, clearly do not.

I may not have a law degree from Florida, but I do know how to read and I am quite good at comprehending what I've read. If you want to condescend to somebody, pick one of the little paralegals running around your law firm, they have a personal financial stake in keeping your ass well-kissed.

 

[lawgator1]

"Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care."

How is this not what obama is proposing?

There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between "health care coverage" -- meaning tax-paid for and government regulated and controlled delivery of actual services -- versus ensuring that people are pying into a system that then reimburses the private sector for delivery of actual services.

Obama's plan does not envision a government department deciding what services you get and don't get. It does, however, envision keeping people who have no insurance form using emergency rooms as their primary care doctors, which is why in part it costs $8 for an aspirin at your neighborhood facility.



I agree that strong unions mean a different distribution of profit than where there are weaker unions. I do not agree that you can quanitfy that across countries or economies and therefore reject your claim as unprovable, in either direction.

ridiculous. in france you can't even fire anyone, you can't work over 40 hours a week, and you get a mandatory 4 weeks of vacation. they have similar laws in canada and eastern europe.

How is the economy in France? And when I ask that, I don't mean for those who make a living investing money to make money, but for those who work for them.

Both the terms "high" and "wealthy" need to be defined. And even if you were right, you'd have to show that higher taxation necessarily means lower standard of living (for the wealth or others) before you could say it was a bad thing.

I realize you make a living helping the wealthy get wealthier. Nothing wrong with that. But you cannot simply assume that higher taxes are always bad.

I quantify that as higher than average taxes which socialized countries definetly have. A look at comparable standards of living, median income, and the unemployment rates at socialized countries compared ot non socialized countries proves that high taxation is "always bad."


"Higher than average?" What defines the numerator and the deonominator? Are you including all countries? Are you distinguishing between gradations of economic "socialism"? I doubt it, because I don't think there is any agreement out there on how to compare those apples to those oranges.




What are the respective rates? Don't the taxation policies have a lot to do with each country's individual resources, infrastructure, and needs? Bad comparison. Too many variables.

Try buying gas for under $5 a gallon anywhere in europe. I very much doubt that our oil costs are lower than those countries.

Perhaps, but is all of that because of taxation of oil? And what about those who say we are headed for that anyway, not because of taxes but because of the increased cost of oil and refining?

And, they pay it in those countries and what is the result? Lower demand, better efficiency, more incentive for alternatives. In the end, necessity is the mother of invention. Now who do you think would really like to see us spend up to the last penny for their product before spending that one last additional penny that makes us change our source or our pattern of use? Hmmmm ....

.

 

[droski]

Obama's plan does not envision a government department deciding what services you get and don't get. It does, however, envision keeping people who have no insurance form using emergency rooms as their primary care doctors, which is why in part it costs $8 for an aspirin at your neighborhood facility.

Of course his plan envisons deciding what services you get and don't get. that was actually a key part of his proposal. have you actually been paying attention?

How is the economy in France? And when I ask that, I don't mean for those who make a living investing money to make money, but for those who work for them.

their gdp growth has been half of that of the united states int he last 20 years and unemployment is consistantly 5-10% higher than that of the united states.

"Higher than average?" What defines the numerator and the deonominator? Are you including all countries? Are you distinguishing between gradations of economic "socialism"? I doubt it, because I don't think there is any agreement out there on how to compare those apples to those oranges.

corporate and personal income tax rates between economies are fairly easy to quantify. unfortunetly both of our rates are now nearing the socialized countries.

Perhaps, but is all of that because of taxation of oil? And what about those who say we are headed for that anyway, not because of taxes but because of the increased cost of oil and refining?

And, they pay it in those countries and what is the result? Lower demand, better efficiency, more incentive for alternatives. In the end, necessity is the mother of invention. Now who do you think would really like to see us spend up to the last penny for their product before spending that one last additional penny that makes su change our source or our pattern of use? Hmmmm ....

You are showing your ignorance if you think it has anything to do with refining. It's a social program to tax oil in those countries to try to encourage a change in behavior. higher taxes to encourage a change in behavior hmmm, remind you of anyone?

 

[CountVolcula]

All Obama and the Dems want to do is turn us into a Welfare State, so that everybody dependes on the government for jobs, food, clothing, etc.. With that, there is ultimate power and control. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth. " Lenin

"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed. " Lenin

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one." Lenin

"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. " Lenin

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. " Lenin

For You, Comrade LG