Sure, but should I also cite references when I say that the sky is blue?
This is one of the things I’m talking about. The only way your complaints can be correct is if you’re referring to well-known and documented facts, which I “don’t document.” But fine.
“The Germany of the 1930s, which rebuilt a crippled economy with enormous military production under a National Socialist government, has been cited as an example of military Keynesianism[…]”
Here’s some about China’s current stimulus, the effects of which should be obvious:
In addition, you may be misunderstanding me. Many peple have misunderstood Keynes, and interpreted him to be saying that deficit spending is always good, which is not at all what he said. Similarly, I’m not saying a country should run deficits all the time, but it can work to pull an economy out of the ditch. You probably realize what I’m saying, but just for clarity, there you go.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You have no problem with that much being taken from the middle and working classes, Bill. Why should we cry for the rich? They’re doing just fine. Or is it the number you’re fixating on?[/quote]
I personally find it horrific that you would classify people, and second I find it a gross theft to steal anyone’s income lower than mine (read: taxation) or higher, at the same level. If we had anarchy, this would not be a problem because there would be no taxes. Just saying.
food (the only truly scarce necessity, as water and air are basically free).
[/quote]
???
Water is an essential resource for life and good health. [u]A lack of water to meet daily needs is a reality today for one in three people around the world.
Globally, the problem is getting worse [/u] as cities and populations grow, and the needs for water increase in agriculture, industry and households.
food (the only truly scarce necessity, as water and air are basically free).
[/quote]
???
Water is an essential resource for life and good health. [u]A lack of water to meet daily needs is a reality today for one in three people around the world.
Globally, the problem is getting worse [/u] as cities and populations grow, and the needs for water increase in agriculture, industry and households.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It appears Mr MrCarter doesn’t grasp that higher tax rates don’t necessarily produce more revenue.
As to whether Obama would hike tax rates even if knowing that this would reduce revenue, yes he would.
I say this because during the campaign Charlie Gibson asked him a question which was very explicit on this. Gibson explained that it’s been shown that higher capital gains tax rates reduce revenue. He asked Obama why increase the rate when this will produce less revenue?
What was Obama’s response? Disagreement that it would reduce revenue?
No.
Obama would do it despite reducing revenue because it would be “more fair.”[/quote]
If we had anarchy, none of this would be a problem. And even Obama would enjoy it because he wouldn’t look like the assclown (he seems like a naturally nice person) infront of the world. As well, no one would have to worry to raise or lower the taxes. Just saying.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It appears Mr MrCarter doesn’t grasp that higher tax rates don’t necessarily produce more revenue.
As to whether Obama would hike tax rates even if knowing that this would reduce revenue, yes he would.
I say this because during the campaign Charlie Gibson asked him a question which was very explicit on this. Gibson explained that it’s been shown that higher capital gains tax rates reduce revenue. He asked Obama why increase the rate when this will produce less revenue?
What was Obama’s response? Disagreement that it would reduce revenue?
No.
Obama would do it despite reducing revenue because it would be “more fair.”[/quote]
At the heart of it is some sort of perverted social justice. I’m not surprised, just a bit sad for the country. At a time when we need a real free market leader like a Ronald Reagan we get instead Fidel Castro.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You have no problem with that much being taken from the middle and working classes, Bill. Why should we cry for the rich? They’re doing just fine. Or is it the number you’re fixating on?[/quote]
I personally find it horrific that you would classify people, and second I find it a gross theft to steal anyone’s income lower than mine (read: taxation) or higher, at the same level. If we had anarchy, this would not be a problem because there would be no taxes. Just saying.[/quote]
I see Mr McCarter is making up lies again.
It’s unfortunate that the Ignore function isn’t powerful enough to remove the worthless from attributions as well.
food (the only truly scarce necessity, as water and air are basically free).
[/quote]
???
Water is an essential resource for life and good health. [u]A lack of water to meet daily needs is a reality today for one in three people around the world.
Globally, the problem is getting worse [/u] as cities and populations grow, and the needs for water increase in agriculture, industry and households.
Personally? I’ve done some work with water and sanitation NGOs.
You? I’d be happy if you clicked on the link and became slightly less ignorant.
[quote] John S. wrote:
Maybe make a machine that cleans the salt out of water and get water out of the oceans, water scarcity on the blue planet what a load of shit.[/quote]
John, sometimes the extent of your ignorance and inhumanity are actually outstanding. People are dying, mate. You’re just too damn stupid to know about it.
Just to clarify, and I am no Keynesian. Keynes believed the purpose of fiscal policy was to address CYCLICAL deficits, aka business cycles, not structural deficits, which were pretty much considered disadvantageous by any school of economic thought. So it is really , what is the money going towards, and how can it be recouped.
Here is some clarification.
Structural deficit forms part of the public sector deficit. Structural deficit differs from cyclical deficit in that it exists even when the economy is at its potential.
Structural deficit issues can only be addressed by explicit and direct government policies: reducing spending (including entitlements), increasing the tax base, and/or increasing tax rates. It can be described as more “chronic” or long-term in nature hence needing government action to remove it.
The opposite of a structural deficit is a structural surplus. Likewise, the opposite of a cyclical deficit is a cyclical surplus.
food (the only truly scarce necessity, as water and air are basically free).
[/quote]
???
Water is an essential resource for life and good health. [u]A lack of water to meet daily needs is a reality today for one in three people around the world.
Globally, the problem is getting worse [/u] as cities and populations grow, and the needs for water increase in agriculture, industry and households.
Personally? I’ve done some work with water and sanitation NGOs.
You? I’d be happy if you clicked on the link and became slightly less ignorant.
[quote] John S. wrote:
Maybe make a machine that cleans the salt out of water and get water out of the oceans, water scarcity on the blue planet what a load of shit.[/quote]
John, sometimes the extent of your ignorance and inhumanity are actually outstanding. People are dying, mate. You’re just too damn stupid to know about it.
[/quote]
I don’t need a website telling me that water is scarce, I presume everything is scarce. However do you suggest we do the almighty government ownage of water resources or you suggest private ownership so someone has the incentive to keep the water healthy, the springs healthy, etc. so their assets do not dwindle?
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Just to clarify, and I am no Keynesian. Keynes believed the purpose of fiscal policy was to address CYCLICAL deficits, aka business cycles, not structural deficits, which were pretty much considered disadvantageous by any school of economic thought. So it is really , what is the money going towards, and how can it be recouped.
Here is some clarification.
Structural deficit forms part of the public sector deficit. Structural deficit differs from cyclical deficit in that it exists even when the economy is at its potential.
Structural deficit issues can only be addressed by explicit and direct government policies: reducing spending (including entitlements), increasing the tax base, and/or increasing tax rates. It can be described as more “chronic” or long-term in nature hence needing government action to remove it.
The opposite of a structural deficit is a structural surplus. Likewise, the opposite of a cyclical deficit is a cyclical surplus.[/quote]
What exactly do you mean by deficit, how often do they naturally happen? How long do businesses last usually with one of these things?
There are over 200 counties in the United States in which 50% or more of the population is on food stamps. The recent rise in food prices have been fairly widely noticed, as have the increased demands on food banks.[/quote]
…And? People still only spend ~10-15% of their income on food. People can survive without food stamps, the program is meant to alleviate the burden of being poor, not to FEED the poor.
You were insinuating that Adam Smith would have found an income tax at all palatable, which I think is a gross misinterpretation. He was talking about a scaled property tax because he thought the poor (who at the time were spending MOST [read: not 20%] of their income on food) would starve if they were over taxed.
(Also, to address the water thing: I mean the US, of course. I know that other nations have water problems.)
The first part of my post was just saying that you can survive in America (and I mean survive literally) with out any kind of government help just fine.
food (the only truly scarce necessity, as water and air are basically free).
[/quote]
???
Water is an essential resource for life and good health. [u]A lack of water to meet daily needs is a reality today for one in three people around the world.
Globally, the problem is getting worse [/u] as cities and populations grow, and the needs for water increase in agriculture, industry and households.
I’m sorry but when the hell did we stop talking about the US and start talking about the world? In the US, water is next to free. Go into any restaurant and ask for a cup of water, most of them will give it to you sans-cost.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You have no problem with that much being taken from the middle and working classes, Bill. Why should we cry for the rich? They’re doing just fine. Or is it the number you’re fixating on?[/quote]
I personally find it horrific that you would classify people, and second I find it a gross theft to steal anyone’s income lower than mine (read: taxation) or higher, at the same level. If we had anarchy, this would not be a problem because there would be no taxes. Just saying.[/quote]
It’s horrific to classify people? You’re going to have a tough time in this world then, if your “horrific” threshold is so low.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You have no problem with that much being taken from the middle and working classes, Bill. Why should we cry for the rich? They’re doing just fine. Or is it the number you’re fixating on?[/quote]
I personally find it horrific that you would classify people, and second I find it a gross theft to steal anyone’s income lower than mine (read: taxation) or higher, at the same level. If we had anarchy, this would not be a problem because there would be no taxes. Just saying.[/quote]
I see Mr McCarter is making up lies again.
It’s unfortunate that the Ignore function isn’t powerful enough to remove the worthless from attributions as well.
[/quote]
I see Mr. Roberts is again annoyed at the scrutiny of his ridiculous posts.
Immaterial. The point is that food is less easily affordable for many than you let on.
“The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State.”
There is cause to believe, in the passage earlier quoted, that he was speaking specifically of a property tax, but no reason whatsoever to conclude that was opposed to higher income tax rates. This new quote removes all doubt.
Good thing the citizens of the richest country on earth can simply survive.
Brother Chris, deficits are when expenditures are greater than revenues. Ie government spending is greater than they take in. There is a multitude of types of government spending, and a multitude of ways revenue is taken in. So when people talk about budget defecits… they are referring to the government spends more than it is taking in.
With regards to cyclical deficits, they are as the name implies related to business cycles. Now what causes business cycles has vast interpretation. A simple example is the fed changing interest rates. Certain sectors are drastically affected by interest rates, financials for example. Things like homes, industry etc are very interest rate sensitive. And since these are industries that are heavily tied into other aspects of the economy, such as financials, light industry etc. An effect from interest rates in one area is similar to ripples in a pond. They affect outwards at a lessening, but signifigant rate. This is why companies hedge themselves so hopefuly they dont overextend.
So, the cyclical deficits are a result of decreasing tax receipts on the wavering industries. This assumes a constant government expenditure. Keyenesians would have this addressed by minor flucuations with fiscal policy, mostly to keep full employment. That is the keynesian goal. Thus they may say lower business taxes or put some liquidity into the market by purchasing securities. So it turns into a delicate balance of when to turn it on, and when to turn it off and keep it from overheating.
Structural deficits are those that are completley government related and due to policy. These include, well fighting wars in afghanistan and Iraq that cost billions and billions of dollars. There is no way you make up for that in taxes, so the structural deficit increases. Now if you couple that with Bush’s post 9/11 tax cuts, you are increasing expenditures and decreasing intake. Now, no offense to his first tax cut, it did the trick… but around 04-05 they were no longer necessary, yet they continued and the deficit soared. Entitlement program spending such as Medicare Medicaid, etc is all directly from the government and would affect the structural deficit as well. And once again, due to the nature of politicians they dont want to think of how its going to be paid for, and pass the problem on to future generations such as my own.
Having a budget deficit is not necessarily a bad thing, it just depends on the reasons for, and how big you allow it to get. Ours is a huge problem.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The Keynesian-type of solution has never worked, except here during the Depression, in Germany during the Depression, in China as we speak, and even here right now to some extent.
Guys, theory is great, but occasionally you have to look at the real world.[/quote]
During the depression? LOL! That’s the very model that prolonged it, not fixed it. None of FDR’s policies fixed a fucking thing, unless you consider 25% unemployment a success story…
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Sure, but should I also cite references when I say that the sky is blue?
This is one of the things I’m talking about. The only way your complaints can be correct is if you’re referring to well-known and documented facts, which I “don’t document.” But fine.
“The Germany of the 1930s, which rebuilt a crippled economy with enormous military production under a National Socialist government, has been cited as an example of military Keynesianism[…]”
Here’s some about China’s current stimulus, the effects of which should be obvious:
In addition, you may be misunderstanding me. Many peple have misunderstood Keynes, and interpreted him to be saying that deficit spending is always good, which is not at all what he said. Similarly, I’m not saying a country should run deficits all the time, but it can work to pull an economy out of the ditch. You probably realize what I’m saying, but just for clarity, there you go.[/quote]
So you want to follow Hitler’s economic policies? So how’d that turn out for him in the end?
At least military spending is pruchasing good and services…A 4.1 billion dollar donation to ACORN doesn’t stimulate shit.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You have no problem with that much being taken from the middle and working classes, Bill. Why should we cry for the rich? They’re doing just fine. Or is it the number you’re fixating on?[/quote]
I personally find it horrific that you would classify people, and second I find it a gross theft to steal anyone’s income lower than mine (read: taxation) or higher, at the same level. If we had anarchy, this would not be a problem because there would be no taxes. Just saying.[/quote]
It’s horrific to classify people? You’re going to have a tough time in this world then, if your “horrific” threshold is so low.
[/quote]
No, I find it horrific or unfaithomable to classify people by classes, becuase where is the cut offs? How would I know which class I am in? And who gives you that power to figure that out? Or what emperical evidence can you show that proves that because person A makes one penny more per year than person B, that person A is now the rich class and person B is the working class.