Corporate Profits At All Time High:

[Outback Jack]

Originally Posted by RandFan

… what is the thesis that people who were born disadvantaged should pay some tax even if they are struggling to survive?

Originally Posted by Profanz

Its an opportunity to be patriotic for real for once.

Or perhaps more importantly, as the Vice President has said, a government

Quote:

"Where everyone, and I mean everyone, has skin in the game and no one gets played for a sucker."

[Outback Jack]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Conservatives don't think it's theft to take 700 billion from people to spend on misadventure so excuse me if I don't buy into the "they're stealing my stuff" nonsense.

Originally Posted by RandFan

I see no evidence of a correlation that could justify supply side economics.

RandFan, what is your opinion of the 750+billion/year 'stimulus'? Do you think that was justified? And, in you opinion, how is the 'stimulus' different than supply side economics?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Defense spending actually creates jobs and increases revenues as opposed to handing it out to people who don't work..

Yes it does. But very inefficiently. Suppose a $1 million creates x jobs. That same mil spent in, say, education, will create much more than x. One reason is that defense spending has a large non-labor element whereas teaching is almost all labor.

Hang on ....

Yes, here is the data I was remembering.

If you distrust that data, the Heritage Foundation posted five ways for the government to create more jobs. None of them were military spending.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Can you provide an example of how a poor idiot can affect millions of people, often. I can only think of one way but it doesn't happen very often.

How does Adelson affect millions of people often?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by RandFan

So, did you complain when your money was taken from you and used to start a war in Iraq on false pretenses?

I'd need the rest of the details of your counterfactual before I could give it due consideration.

[respect]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I realize how easy it is to become distracted by shinny objects and squirrels. But this thread is about the apparent lack of evidence for supply side economics.

Yes, there is a considerable lack of evidence that the government can cause supply curves to shift as predicted by supply side economic theory.

But you don't seem to be interested in talking about flaws in the actual theory, rather you want to talk about the strawman version from liberal talking points.

[respect]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Ever notice how Republicans are so happy to have their taxes used to kill people but they don't like their taxes used to feed people. *What's up with that?

No. I haven't noticed that and neither have you, it is a strawman.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by WildCat

How does Adelson affect millions of people often?

I'm happy to reply as soon as you can cite a post where I said that.

[respect]

Originally Posted by Outback Jack

Do you think that was justified? And, in you opinion, how is the 'stimulus' different than supply side economics?

Supply side economics places considerably less importance on demand that most schools of thought and is more fearful of interest rates and future taxes quickly turning spending multipliers negative, that's a real concern but most recognize that there are exceptions where the multiplying effect can be positive. The Keynesian fiscal stimulus argument hinges on the spending being coherent and the economy being in a liquidity trap but supply side economic theory is highly skeptical of this. While data will be revised a lot in coming years the early returns suggest that the multiplying effect has been positive, although the stimulus was not as successful as the Obama Administration predicted because they wildly overestimated how positive the effect would be. The concern with more is if people expect higher tax rates in the future and/or the borrowing decreases demand for Treasury Bonds the multiplying effect will decline and can turn negative. While it appears to have had some positive effect it is nowhere near as simple as the people saying, "some spending did okay so more should be even better" think.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by RandFan

[*]People have to spend the money on something (ostensibly it will be given to people who work).[*] People have to work to administer social programs.[*]Providing social services often gets them back on their feet. When you kill a child that child is just dead.[/list]

Transferring wealth ≠ creating wealth.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Is it obtuse Monday? People born INTO wealth are advantaged.

It must be obtuse money. Because Randfan said rich people were born advantaged. No where did he limit it to only those who were born into wealth. Words have meaning, if you read them.

[Modified]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Yes it does. But very inefficiently. Suppose a $1 million creates x jobs. That same mil spent in, say, education, will create much more than x. One reason is that defense spending has a large non-labor element whereas teaching is almost all labor.

Not to mention, the physical products are not directly useful. If you spend money to build a (needed) road, you have a road that people use and that will save money every year for shippers and commuters. If you spend that same money to build a tank, there are no similar benefits.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Outback Jack

RandFan, what is your opinion of the 750+billion/year 'stimulus'? Do you think that was justified? And, in you opinion, how is the 'stimulus' different than supply side economics?

The stimulus puts money into the hands of people who will spend it directly into the economy.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Outback Jack

Or perhaps more importantly, as the Vice President has said, a government

Are you telling me that the Vice President is against social social safety nets? In any event, if Biden is against providing social safety nets and if this his is argument it's a pretty pathetic argument. I seriously doubt that the VP is against social safety nets and I suspect you do also.

That said, poor people pays taxes including payroll taxes (as opposed to income taxes) sales and other local taxes. So they have plenty of "skin" in the game.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

You say you want a serious discussion and then you post something as ridiculous as that?

Why do you say it's ridiculous? It was posted in all seriousness and I stand by it. Do you have something more substantive?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Virus

Transferring wealth ≠ creating wealth.

I've already addressed this.

The Economic Case for Food Stamps

Originally Posted by The Atlantic

Those who believe in cutting SNAP funding as a cost-saving measure should know that food stamps boost the economy -- not put a strain on it. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. "Expanding food stamps," the study read, "is the most effective way to prime the economy's pump."

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Yes it does. But very inefficiently. Suppose a $1 million creates x jobs. That same mil spent in, say, education, will create much more than x. One reason is that defense spending has a large non-labor element whereas teaching is almost all labor.

Hang on ....

Yes, here is the data I was remembering.

If you distrust that data, the Heritage Foundation posted five ways for the government to create more jobs. None of them were military spending.

Thanks. And the Heritage Foundation posting how govt can create jobs is great.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I don't think they have much of a problem with someone extending a hand to the poor; the problem is being forced to extend their hand to the poor. It's called stealing their stuff, and giving it to someone else.

Well, they can cry me a river. We live in a society. No man is an island and all that.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

It must be obtuse money.

Hilarious typo.

Quote:

Because Randfan said rich people were born advantaged.

No he didn't.

[RandFan]

• If you are born into wealth you are born advantaged.
• If you are born into poverty you are not.

Any questions? Not every rich person was born rich and/or advantaged. I've stated that on more than one occasion.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I'm happy to reply as soon as you can cite a post where I said that.

Short memory?

Originally Posted by SezMe

They are. A poor idiot affects virtually nobody. A rich idiot can spread his/her inanity far and wide. I offer Sheldon Adelson as Exhibit A. I can pretty much consume the rest of the alphabet if you'd like.

I eagerly await your reply.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Modified

Not to mention, the physical products are not directly useful. If you spend money to build a (needed) road, you have a road that people use and that will save money every year for shippers and commuters. If you spend that same money to build a tank, there are no similar benefits.

Until a foreign power seizes your land and roads for itself because you have no tanks (or other weapons) to stop them.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I've already addressed this.

The Economic Case for Food Stamps

By that math you could have a thriving state with a growing economy based on nothing but transfer payments.

Maybe the math is wrong?

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Is it possible you might have heard that wrong, or the person misspoke? The top 1% had an adjusted gross income in 2010 (last year I can find the final data on) of 1.517 Trillion, which would be slightly less than the entire budget deficit for 2011, though it's hoped the 2012 deficit will be more on the order of 1 Trillion. The top 10% had an adjusted gross income of about 3.6 trillion.

They could have meant that the total confiscation of the top ten percent's income wouldn't make a dent in the debt which is currently figured at 16 Trillion though of that 5 Trillion is money the government has 'borrowed' from itself or already 'promised' to pay such as the Social Security 'Trust Fund' and other federal pensions and things like nuke plant decommissioning costs. The reason I make the distinction is that the 11 Trillion of Public Debt means we pay interest out on it, whereas the other 5 Trillion we do not, however the Social Security 'Trust Fund' accumulates 'interest' for reasons not germane to this post, however that just adds to the amount kept track of in the fund which is to ensure that every dime plus 'interest' that had been raised from 1983-2010 gets paid to social security recipients as we deliberately ran a surplus those years. For all other intents and purposes that five trillion is just 'debt in waiting' as we have to borrow it when it comes time to pay out, which is why most simply refer to the debt as 16 Trillion.



Regarding the issue of 'fairness' and the rich 'paying their share' the top 1% with that income of 1.517 trillion, which as you can see was 18.9% of the total AGI of all filers, paid 37.4% of the total income tax. The top 10% with ~45% of adjusted gross income paid ~70% of the total income tax. The bottom 50% of filers had 11.7% of the AGI and paid 2.4% of the total income tax. However the FICA tax is capped at 102k or so, thus anyone making more doesn't pay more in payroll taxes, meaning that tax is not nearly as progressive as the income tax and the bottom 50% pay a much more significant portion.

Just FYI as I happened to be looking at it earlier.

Crap, I blew the link, this is what should have been in the first one where it said 1.517 trillion.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

• If you are born into wealth you are born advantaged.
• If you are born into poverty you are not.

Any questions?

So we should ban rich people from having children so no one is born advantaged?

Seriously, what is the purpose of posting this amazing discovery of yours?

Next we can tackle the problem of tall people being unfairly advantaged at basketball.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

As far as I know, entitlements exceed defense ( killing other people ) spending by a fair margin.

This page at the GAO's web site contains reports on the U.S. government 2011 fiscal year. From the financial statements, here are the top five departments in the U.S. in terms of net expenditures (including any changes to assumptions), and the percentage of total expenditures for which that department accounted in the 2011 fiscal year.

Department of Health and Human Services: $877.1 billion (24.0%)
Social Security Administration: $782.5 billion (21.4%)
Department of Defense: $718.7 billion (19.6%)
Interest on Treasury Securities Held by the Public: $250.9 billion (6.9%)
Department of Veterans Affairs: $178.5 billion (4.9%)

If "interest on treasury securities held by the public" represents the cost to the U.S. government of servicing its debt, then at present it consumes about 7% of government expenditures. By way of comparison, in Canada currently the cost of servicing the nation's debt is about 13% of government expenditures (down considerably from the roughly 33% of the early 1990s).

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by WildCat

So we should ban rich people from having children so no one is born advantaged?

Non sequitur of the year.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Quote:

So we should ban rich people from having children so no one is born advantaged?

Non sequitur of the year.

Straw men are his specialty.

RandFan: Social programs are important to help improve outcomes for poor people.
Response: Social programs are unfair because they take the fruits of the rich to give to the poor.
RandFan: Being born poor is unfair.
Response: So we should ban rich people from having children?
RandFan: WE SHOULD HAVE SOCIAL PROGRAMS TO HELP THE POOR.

[Modified]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Until a foreign power seizes your land and roads for itself because you have no tanks (or other weapons) to stop them.

Do you think we are any where near that level?

Would the danger be significantly greater if we had half the weapons we have now?

Would doubling the number of weapons we currently have significantly reduce the danger?

Does it just happen that we currently have the ideal amount of weapons?

I would answer "no" to all of those. For the most part it's money better spent.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Modified

Do you think we are any where near that level?

No.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Straw men are his specialty.

It's not a strawman, it's a rhetorical device to get you to reveal what you think should be done about this amazing discovery of yours that rich people are advantaged.

You keep bringing it up, is there an actual point?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Modified

Do you think we are any where near that level?

Would the danger be significantly greater if we had half the weapons we have now?

Would doubling the number of weapons we currently have significantly reduce the danger?

Does it just happen that we currently have the ideal amount of weapons?

I would answer "no" to all of those. For the most part it's money better spent.

The problem with your analysis is that the bulk of the military budget is not in weapons, but in personnel. Something the people who like to pull out charts comparing US military spending with China and Russia and such either don't understand or understand but wish to deliberately mislead.

We spend a lot on the people in our military - we pay for their health care for the rest of their lives, we send them to college, we help them buy homes, etc etc. China and Russia pay them squat by comparison, they draft them, use them, and spit them out. You don't have to attract recruits with pay and bennies when you have a draft.

The low-hanging fruit in reducing the military budget is by consolidating bases, reducing their number so the ones left can be run more efficiently. But it takes a herculean effort by Congress to agree to even modest base closings, though everyone agrees the bases in the other guy's district should be closed. Just not their own.

eta: lol, I didn't even see before I wrote that that RandFan had pulled out the infamous chart. So predictable!

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Short memory?

No, a misunderstanding. But you were right to call me on it so I apologize for the confusion.

We got crossed up at #164. I asked:

Originally Posted by SezMe

Can you provide an example of how a poor idiot can affect millions of people, often. I can only think of one way but it doesn't happen very often.

to which you replied:

Originally Posted by WildCat

How does Adelson affect millions of people often?

and I replied:

Originally Posted by SezMe

I'm happy to reply as soon as you can cite a post where I said that.

which was inane. Of course I said that about Adelson. In fact, I would SWEAR I wrote up a reply about Adelson instead of that actual post but I cannot find it . Poor finger/mouse work? Low quality moonshine? I dunno. Anyway, I posted the wrong reply there. Sorry.

But your question about Adelson was a non sequitor. I was talking about poor people and you responded with a question about Adelson. Adelson is not poor so he is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

If you want, I'll try to answer your question about Adelson (again?) but by now the thread has moved on and sir-drinks-a-lot, to whom I was originally replying to, has not responded to me so this subthread hardly seems worth pursuing.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by SezMe

No, a misunderstanding. But you were right to call me on it so I apologize for the confusion.

We got crossed up at #164. I asked:



to which you replied:



and I replied:

which was inane. Of course I said that about Adelson. In fact, I would SWEAR I wrote up a reply about Adelson instead of that actual post but I cannot find it . Poor finger/mouse work? Low quality moonshine? I dunno. Anyway, I posted the wrong reply there. Sorry.

But your question about Adelson was a non sequitor. I was talking about poor people and you responded with a question about Adelson. Adelson is not poor so he is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

If you want, I'll try to answer your question about Adelson (again?) but by now the thread has moved on and sir-drinks-a-lot, to whom I was originally replying to, has not responded to me so this subthread hardly seems worth pursuing.

Your claim is that poor people being idiots don't affect millions of people, but that rich people do and that's why you're not concerned about poor idiots. You offered Adelson as an example of a rich idiot affecting millions.

Now you're denying all of this?

[Modified]

Originally Posted by WildCat

The problem with your analysis is that the bulk of the military budget is not in weapons, but in personnel.

The same issues apply to personnel. You can pay someone to train to fight, or pay them to mow my lawn. If you don't need them to fight, then either way the result of their spending is the same, but one way I get my lawn mowed and the other way I get nothing. And the same questions of amount also apply. It is improbable that we have the ideal number of soldiers, so we either have to many or too few. Closing bases and reducing personnel may be politically difficult, as you point out, but would probably be less so if we put those people to work at the same pay doing public infrastructure upgrades.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Modified

The same issues apply to personnel. You can pay someone to train to fight, or pay them to mow my lawn. If you don't need them to fight, then either way the result of their spending is the same, but one way I get my lawn mowed and the other way I get nothing. And the same questions of amount also apply. It is improbable that we have the ideal number of soldiers, so we either have to many or too few. Closing bases and reducing personnel may be politically difficult, as you point out, but would probably be less so if we put those people to work at the same pay doing public infrastructure upgrades.

I would not advocate for drastic change. First and foremost the growth needs to stop. Let attrition do much of the heavy lifting. But we would need to phase in cuts to current levels of spending. It can be done without too much pain. We closed all kinds of bases just before we saw one of the biggest economic booms in recent history. I'm not claiming cause and effect just noting that we can do it and it will probably be easier on the economy than cutting social programs.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Modified

The same issues apply to personnel. You can pay someone to train to fight, or pay them to mow my lawn. If you don't need them to fight, then either way the result of their spending is the same, but one way I get my lawn mowed and the other way I get nothing. And the same questions of amount also apply. It is improbable that we have the ideal number of soldiers, so we either have to many or too few. Closing bases and reducing personnel may be politically difficult, as you point out, but would probably be less so if we put those people to work at the same pay doing public infrastructure upgrades.

Put them to work ? Like the WPA ?

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Your claim is that poor people being idiots don't affect millions of people, but that rich people do and that's why you're not concerned about poor idiots. You offered Adelson as an example of a rich idiot affecting millions.

Now you're denying all of this?

Um ... is there another explanation for what happened on November 6^th?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Now you're denying all of this?

Now the problem is 100% yours and I won't bother to reply on this silliness anymore.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Now the problem is 100% yours and I won't bother to reply on this silliness anymore.

So the following wasn't actually a claim that Adelson affects people "far and wide" with his idiocy?

Originally Posted by SezMe

They are. A poor idiot affects virtually nobody. A rich idiot can spread his/her inanity far and wide. I offer Sheldon Adelson as Exhibit A. I can pretty much consume the rest of the alphabet if you'd like.