Who's to blame for the slow recovery?

[Moderate Right]

LOL The Europeans got their "social policies" from FDR and that is not what is causing the terrorist attacks. Islamic radicals are thriving in the Muslim ghettos that are keeping them isolated from society. We do have much to learn from Europe. Things like banning private schools so that the wealthy force the Govt. to provide top class education to ALL are fine ideas. We have been left behind in many ways by Europe, who have spent the last few decades rebuilding their public transportation and infrastructure instead of stirring up hornets nests in the Mideast. We can still catch up but the time is running out.

There is much more to the world than liberal checklists.

 

[Fruityfact]

Kansas's problems are the result of far right policies, which are different than "moderate right" policies.

Can you, with details and facts, explain the difference. Also you might as well try and prove how these "moderate right" policies would've resulted in something positive instead of you know, ****

 

[jpn]

There is much more to the world than liberal checklists.

Whereas in the simple world of the doctrinaire conservative, all government is all bad all the time. How silly.

 

[jpn]

Kansas's problems are the result of far right policies, which are different than "moderate right" policies.

At least you acknowledge the idiocy of the far right. But your posts always end up sounding like they're written from the far right. A moderate, "slightly conservative" person should be able to recognize the essential role government plays, and the evil that unregulated free market capitalism does. You never admit either.

 

[Moderate Right]

Can you, with details and facts, explain the difference. Also you might as well try and prove how these "moderate right" policies would've resulted in something positive instead of you know, ****

If tax rates are too high and you cut them it WILL result in more tax revenues. If tax rates are about right or too low, cutting taxes will result in less tax revenues collected. Both the far left and the far right do not understand this. The far left doesn't understand that if tax rates are indeed too high, this will increase tax revenues and the far right does not understand that if tax rates are not too high then even less tax revenues will be collected. Liberals believe that lowering tax rates will ALWAYS result in less taxes collected and the far right believes that lowering tax rates ALWAYS results in more taxes being collected. BOTH sides are wrong and that is what happened in KANSAS. The far righties cut tax rates that were NOT too high and paid the price for their mistake and those far righties are now being challenged in the primaries by moderates. The Laffer curve clearly shows and explains how this works and Arthur Laffer is a conservative economist. He understood how it works but neither the far left nor the far right understands how it works.

 

[jpn]

Did you forget that we owe 20 trillion dollars and add more to it every year?

The person who seems to have forgotten it is Donald Trump. He is proposing $500 billion in stimulus spending on infrastructure, but has no plans for paying for it. Instead, he proposes massive tax cuts for him and his rich buddies, and eliminating estate taxes so free-loader kids who have never spent a day of their lives not rich can continue living on the gravy train.

In contrast, Clinton proposes a $275 billion stimulus, paid for with higher taxes on the very rich.

So which candidate is the more fiscally responsible?

 

[jpn]

If tax rates are too high and you cut them it WILL result in more tax revenues. If tax rates are about right or too low, cutting taxes will result in less tax revenues collected. Both the far left and the far right do not understand this. The far left doesn't understand that if tax rates are indeed too high, this will increase tax revenues and the far right does not understand that if tax rates are not too high then even less tax revenues will be collected. Liberals believe that lowering tax rates will ALWAYS result in less taxes collected and the far right believes that lowering tax rates ALWAYS results in more taxes being collected. BOTH sides are wrong and that is what happened in KANSAS. The far righties cut tax rates that were NOT too high and paid the price for their mistake and those far righties are now being challenged in the primaries by moderates. The Laffer curve clearly shows and explains how this works and Arthur Laffer is a conservative economist. He understood how it works but neither the far left nor the far right understands how it works.

The problem with the Laffer curve is that we don't know where we are on the curve. Here's a good discussion of the efficacy of tax cuts by a moderate conservative, Bruce Bartlett: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/o...rumps-misguided-embrace-of-tax-cuts.html?_r=0

 

[Ganesh]

I have not looked at Canada and Australia very carefully and am more acquainted with European social democracies and social democratic monarchies, where I have checked and rechecked the comparisons with the US. In the areas of my profession and in areas of the profession of close friends of whom I could ask for details beyond readily available statistics I have found that the European models, which are each quite different are floundering on their last legs. In some cases you have to look more closely to see, what state of the situation is. In others you have to understand, what it means, when governments make the proposals they do. But the systems are not sustainable and have usually not been able to fulfill the promises, while wasting huge amounts of money. In most cases they have led populations into situations that are incredibly opposed to the professed wills of the parties that marketed the ideology after the 1960s to get their members elected into well paying jobs. BTW, Germany and to a lesser extent France are two of the systems I have studies and you are very wrong to believe the sirens' song their parties are still trying to hide the doom.

That does not mean that the US is perfect. Of course the Europeans are not alone. Here we have tried to solve many social problems with social programs in huge scale and are finding that they have not worked. Now the people and politicians that have been living of these programs are worried, because these are the only game they understand. They do not want to realize that the world is more complicated than they had told their voters.

It is a long way from that. But the things that can be done are by far and away different from the dreamy social schemes brigade's fantasies.

Perhaps you can put some of your flounders on the table, and we can examine just how much life is left in them. Canada has had medicare since 1962, the UK has had socialized medicine since the late '40s, and Germany trumps them all with pensions going back to the 19th century. How long a trial period do you want? The only threat to such programs is the current trend to redistribution of wealth. Redistribution upwards, to the top one percent. When greed trumps community, then yes, there can be problems.

IMO, most of Europe's problems come from half measures. They went halfway to an economic union, and it doesn't work well with disparate economies and cultures. And they went half way in spending in order to get them out of there slump.

 

[Fruityfact]

If tax rates are too high and you cut them it WILL result in more tax revenues. If tax rates are about right or too low, cutting taxes will result in less tax revenues collected. Both the far left and the far right do not understand this. The far left doesn't understand that if tax rates are indeed too high, this will increase tax revenues and the far right does not understand that if tax rates are not too high then even less tax revenues will be collected. Liberals believe that lowering tax rates will ALWAYS result in less taxes collected and the far right believes that lowering tax rates ALWAYS results in more taxes being collected. BOTH sides are wrong and that is what happened in KANSAS. The far righties cut tax rates that were NOT too high and paid the price for their mistake and those far righties are now being challenged in the primaries by moderates. The Laffer curve clearly shows and explains how this works and Arthur Laffer is a conservative economist. He understood how it works but neither the far left nor the far right understands how it works.

Whats too HIGH and whats too LOW? Some arbitrary numbers someone makes up?

 

[FluffyNinja]

While I believe that some of it is simply the cyclical nature of a market economy, a great deal of blame should be placed on anyone (Republican, Democrat, or other) who has continually voted at the national level to keep us bogged down so long militarily in pointless world affairs....particularly the Middle East. Those resources could have better served the US and its economic growth had they been used more efficiently. Instead we've only managed to add to the national debt pile.

 

[Moderate Right]

Whereas in the simple world of the doctrinaire conservative, all government is all bad all the time. How silly.

That's a very dishonest and untruthful statement and an outright lie. Conservatives are for a smaller and limited federal government, not no government. They actually believe in BIGGER state government and a federal government as outlined in the constitution, you know that thing that liberals believe in so much to defend their liberal policies.

 

[Moderate Right]

At least you acknowledge the idiocy of the far right. But your posts always end up sounding like they're written from the far right. A moderate, "slightly conservative" person should be able to recognize the essential role government plays, and the evil that unregulated free market capitalism does. You never admit either.

Again, that is a flat out lie. Conservatives believe in BIGGER state government and a smaller, limited federal government, not no government. You have been brainwashed by your own blind and partisan biased propaganda.

 

[Moderate Right]

The person who seems to have forgotten it is Donald Trump. He is proposing $500 billion in stimulus spending on infrastructure, but has no plans for paying for it. Instead, he proposes massive tax cuts for him and his rich buddies, and eliminating estate taxes so free-loader kids who have never spent a day of their lives not rich can continue living on the gravy train.

In contrast, Clinton proposes a $275 billion stimulus, paid for with higher taxes on the very rich.

So which candidate is the more fiscally responsible?

I'll agree with what you say about Trump but that does not mean that Hillary is fiscally responsible. It just means that she is more than Trump. It also ignores the fact that she is a lying dishonest crook. 67% of her own party thinks so. I'm voting for Johnson, who IS fiscally responsible and is not a crook.

 

[Moderate Right]

The problem with the Laffer curve is that we don't know where we are on the curve. Here's a good discussion of the efficacy of tax cuts by a moderate conservative, Bruce Bartlett: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/o...rumps-misguided-embrace-of-tax-cuts.html?_r=0

Didn't read your link yet but I am interested and will. You are right that it can be very difficult to know ahead of time where you are on the curve without trial and error but part of determining it is common sense. Unfortunately the other part is trial and error, which can be a gamble. But the left needs to acknowledge that if tax rates are too high then lowering them can indeed bring in more tax revenue and the far right needs to acknowledge that if tax rates are NOT too high then cutting them will result in even less tax revenues collected. The far right idiots in Kansas did not understand that due to their blind and brainwashed far right propaganda.

 

[Moderate Right]

Whats too HIGH and whats too LOW? Some arbitrary numbers someone makes up?

There are tax rates that are too high and there are some that are too low and there are some that are just right. It can be very difficult to determine at the time exactly where you are on the curve and as times change your spot on the graph can change as well. If tax rates remain unchanged it doesn't necessarily mean that your spot on the curve remains the same forever. Just as liberals claim that we should not be afraid of large numbers with the national debt, they should not be afriad of the Laffer curve. It can be a very useful tool in guiding optimal tax collections if used wisely. The trouble is liberals refuse to believe that cutting tax rates can sometimes increase tax revenues and some far right idiots believe that cutting tax rates always results in more tax revenues.

 

[joG]

No. What would you say created all that debt?

>>you are claiming that liberals have succeeded in greatly reducing poverty

Yes.

>>while at the very same time arguing that conservative's SSE policies have destroyed the country

No, not "destroyed," but rather weakened and deprived us of opportunities for social progress, including higher incomes for the lower quintiles.

>>and that it has been conservatives policies that have been overriding liberal policies for decades?

I wouldn't say "overriding" them, more like pulling in the other direction.

I very much appreciate yer polite tone, and I sincerely apologise for the obnoxious way I've treated you in the past. I hope I don't return to that, but you know how I am.



Some immigrant populations have not been effectively integrated into European society. Is that the fault of liberalism? Should they simply have been excluded?



I figure he was hoping to establish an effective governing coalition of moderates. Didn't seem to work out, but we may yet see some benefits in the long run.



The description is in the chart's title — "welfare and social services." At a little more than 1.2% of GDP, that's about $220 billion. I'd say it includes EITC, child care, and other tax credits ($82 billion), SNAP ($71 billion), housing assistance ($48 billion), TANF ($16 billion), WIC ($6 billion), and LIHEAP ($3 billion).

>>cash disbursements to the lowest quintile alone is ca 20 percent.

Can you flesh that out a bit? If you include the $446 billion for Medicaid (that goes to vendors) and $55 billion for SSI (you need to be not only poor but elderly or disabled to qualify), you still get to only four percent of GDP.

I thought about it. But no, I will not "thrash it out a bit". All you need do is do a Google search using "social spending by country" and you get any number of relevant data. here for instance is the OECD site, where you can see that US public social spending was about 20 percent and its total social spending about 28 percent of GDP. Social Expenditure Database (SOCX) - OECD

This is still not the whole story, but I let's not get too far ahead of ourselves till you have acquainted yourself with the number and their diversity.

 

[Moderate Right]

The problem with the Laffer curve is that we don't know where we are on the curve. Here's a good discussion of the efficacy of tax cuts by a moderate conservative, Bruce Bartlett: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/o...rumps-misguided-embrace-of-tax-cuts.html?_r=0

Fairly accurate article. As I said, the far left falsely believes that tax cuts are never the answer while the far right falsely believes that tax cuts are always the answer. We need to get rid of the partisan beliefs of both extremes and look at the data with unprejudiced eyes in order to make the correct decisions about economics. Liberals are wrong quite often and so is the far right and that's why the country is in such a mess, because moderates have either left both parties or have been thrown overboard by their very own parties in favor of extremes on both sides. Both sides are the party of no and it is either their way or the highway.

 

[Moderate Right]

For those interested in the Laffer Curve:

Laffer Curve Definition | Investopedia

Laffer Curve - Video | Investopedia

By the way, this curve does not need to be used solely for tax rates. It is useful for a number of different things such as a businesses determining the price to charge for products or services and could even be used to set the minimum wage rates for various parts of the country.

 

[jpn]

Again, that is a flat out lie. Conservatives believe in BIGGER state government and a smaller, limited federal government, not no government. You have been brainwashed by your own blind and partisan biased propaganda.

Is everyone who disagrees with you a "liar?" Perhaps you should discuss increasing your meds with your full time shrink.

Show me some evidence of conservatives wanting to expand state government. All I ever see is conservatives slashing spending like crazy. Like Kansas, like Louisiana. And they are basketcases as a result.

 

[joG]

Perhaps you can put some of your flounders on the table, and we can examine just how much life is left in them. Canada has had medicare since 1962, the UK has had socialized medicine since the late '40s, and Germany trumps them all with pensions going back to the 19th century. How long a trial period do you want? The only threat to such programs is the current trend to redistribution of wealth. Redistribution upwards, to the top one percent. When greed trumps community, then yes, there can be problems.

IMO, most of Europe's problems come from half measures. They went halfway to an economic union, and it doesn't work well with disparate economies and cultures. And they went half way in spending in order to get them out of there slump.

Well, it is well known in Germany in any rate that the present system of Social Security will not work into the future and the payments are being reduced while retirement ages are being extended. And as for UK health system might appear fine to someone with no comparison, but I avoided it like the plague, when I was living in London.

Yes. That is a problem. The vested interests will always look for that explanation and call for more. But, that seems to be coming to an end in many countries of Europe, where the political elite is looking for ways out of the programs without alienating too many voters, like the SPD did in Germany a decade ago. It has never regained a position even close to the one they had and are a stark warning to other Europeans about how to roll back the programs.

 

[jpn]

I'll agree with what you say about Trump but that does not mean that Hillary is fiscally responsible. It just means that she is more than Trump. It also ignores the fact that she is a lying dishonest crook. 67% of her own party thinks so. I'm voting for Johnson, who IS fiscally responsible and is not a crook.

Who was president last time we balanced the budget?

 

[jpn]

It also ignores the fact that she is a lying dishonest crook. 67% of her own party thinks so.

No she isn't.
No it doesn't.

 

[jpn]

Both sides are the party of no and it is either their way or the highway.

Writes the guy who calls everyone who disagrees with him a liar. :roll:

You're really impressed with yourself. Let me guess--you have an undergraduate degree, or are still working on one. And your in your 20s. Just enough education to think you have all the answers, but not enough education or real world experience to understand a damn thing. Yep, that about sums up your posts.

 

[Moderate Right]

Is everyone who disagrees with you a "liar?" Perhaps you should discuss increasing your meds with your full time shrink.

Show me some evidence of conservatives wanting to expand state government. All I ever see is conservatives slashing spending like crazy. Like Kansas, like Louisiana. And they are basketcases as a result.

Partisanship duly noted.

 

[Ganesh]

Again, that is a flat out lie. Conservatives believe in BIGGER state government and a smaller, limited federal government, not no government. You have been brainwashed by your own blind and partisan biased propaganda.

The Libertarian/ far right antipathy towards the federal government is a play for the lowest common denominator, those that become anxious about what they see as intellectually or geographically distant. From an evolutionary perspective, fear is a reasonable response to the unknown, which is why dragons and sea monsters used to be drawn on unexplored parts of maps in times gone by. Fear and anxiety are not functional responses in our modern, tightly connected world however.

Do you really think the problems and issues facing us today will be magically solved by shifting them from DC to 50 state capitals? What gems of knowledge do you have in Kentucky that you have been unwilling to share with the rest of the country? Global warming, green energy, wealth distribution, technology change, unemployment, student debt, welfare policy, health care, trade relationships, monetary and fiscal policy, defense spending.......all made better with 50 demi-kings squabbling and arguing for narrow advantage, shouting me first, me first? The most daunting problems facing us today are not just national, they are global. Looking inwards and closing the village gates is not going to solve them.

If you like fragmentation, take a look at Europe. They are finding out that monetary union is not enough. Using the same currency really requires one central bank, and one set of economic policies, and once one has gone that far, it really necessitates a range of compatible political and social agreement, solidified in law. You'd like to repeat the experiment of a nominal federal government?