# Romney's new tax plan.



## Chouan




----------



## Mike Petrik

Click on anything paid for by the DNC at your own risk. Thank God for Norton warnings.


----------



## tocqueville

His plan is pretty incoherent, from what I could tell. Obama's plan suffers perhaps from being too mild from the point of view of deficit reduction. But Romney--supposing he sticks to his guns re: defense spending--would be too much like W. Unless he really goes after social spending. I don' t know how well the math works in terms of how much would have to be cut from either defense or social stuff to make a significant difference with the deficit.


----------



## Canadian

I liked how (during last nights debate) he pointed out business taxes were 1/3 of the American tax in Canada. Most politicians think of Canada as some socialist wasteland, but I think Romney would be good, even if he doesn't win the Presidency as an ambassador somewhere. He seems to have a better grasp on international politics than Obama or Biden.

Tom


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Canadian said:


> I liked how (during last nights debate) he pointed out business taxes were 1/3 of the American tax in Canada. Most politicians think of Canada as some socialist wasteland, but I think Romney would be good, even if he doesn't win the Presidency as an ambassador somewhere. He seems to have a better grasp on international politics than Obama or Biden.
> 
> Tom


He also gave a straightforward example of how deductions could be maxed at 25k for instance.

Of course, this was immediately met with crys of "He won't give you the details!!"

What Romney failed to point out, however, is that simply lowering rates or decreasing spending will not generate more revenew without robust growth.

All Obama knows and has experienced is flat growth of -2%.

He can't comprehend that a smaller percentage of a larger number generates more revenue.

Or that even 50% of nothing is still nothing.


----------



## eagle2250

Canadian said:


> I liked how (during last nights debate) he pointed out business taxes were 1/3 of the American tax in Canada. Most politicians think of Canada as some socialist wasteland, but I think Romney would be good, even if he doesn't win the Presidency as an ambassador somewhere. He seems to have a better grasp on international politics than Obama or Biden.
> 
> Tom


Perhaps the most frightening aspect of Obama/Biden winning a second term is, if Obama were unable to complete his term of service, "Lunatic Joe" would take over. I cannot recall seeing a more loosely wrapped package than Joe Biden in the VP debate. The thought of 'Happy Joe' in control of the "nuclear football" makes me want to dig a very deep hole and crawl into it for my own safety! :crazy:  LOL. Is that Nero or the Vice President I hear fiddling in the distance?


----------



## Balfour

eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps the most frightening aspect of Obama/Biden winning a second term is, if Obama were unable to complete his term of service, "Lunatic Joe" would take over. I cannot recall seeing a more loosely wrapped package than Joe Biden in the VP debate. The thought of 'Happy Joe' in control of the "nuclear football" makes me want to dig a very deep hole and crawl into it for my own safety! :crazy:  LOL. Is that Nero or the Vice President I hear fiddling in the distance?


That issue scared me last time around, but with the parties reversed!


----------



## VictorRomeo

I honestly don't get where all your fear-mongering comes from. Well, in fairness I do.... but that's not my point.

My point is that if you compare Obama as President and Romney as Governor of MA, their polices and way of working are broadly one and the same. They are both 'weather-vanes'. Little seperates them. Regardless of who wins, the Republican way of life will remain the same. Amazing you don't see that. 

Further. Biden owned Ryan during that debate. With facts, clarity and political deftness. Imagine that. Criticising him as 'demented' and 'rude' is a truly pathetic strawman.


----------



## wrwhiteknight

Canadian said:


> I liked how (during last nights debate) he pointed out business taxes were 1/3 of the American tax in Canada. Most politicians think of Canada as some socialist wasteland, but I think Romney would be good, even if he doesn't win the Presidency as an ambassador somewhere. He seems to have a better grasp on international politics than Obama or Biden.
> 
> Tom


If by "grasp" you mean the republican tendency to stick the muzzle of his pistol in someone-elses living room, then yes, I would say he does have a better "grasp" than Obama or Biden. Republicans suffer from an inability to stay calm when foreign policy gets highly-charged because the entire platform is based upon leading by example, in contrast to Romney's criticism of Obama as "leading from behind".

Well, if it is a bad thing to end the war in Iraq, and to phase out of Afghanistan with the goal of making the Afghan government capable of dealing with its' own internal security, then yes, Obama certainly is guilty of leading from behind.

The two party system is so flawed from a voting perspective because it becomes not a choice of who do I _want_ to vote for, but rather who _can't_ I vote for. For my part, I _can't_ vote for a candidate who has said he does not approve of any new gun control laws, who doesn't think the commander and chief has been aggressive enough in flexing his military muscle, and who has said that he will not touch military funding. The Republican party has shown us and the world over and over that they are willing to go to war; period. Do we really need that?

And the few of you who mentioned nuclear weapons. This is not even an issue, not on the radar, this isn't a comic book.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Canadian said:


> He seems to have a better grasp on international politics than Obama or Biden.


I reckon that's because he knows all the best spots to stash his cash! :wink2:


----------



## Shaver

wrwhiteknight said:


> ......And the few of you who mentioned nuclear weapons. This is not even an issue, not on the radar, this isn't a comic book.


Two minutes is all they will be on the radar for, prior to impact. We cannot wait until that moment to consider the issue. We have lived for so very long in atomic detente but now is the era where many more countries are, or are becoming, nuclear capable.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Indeed. Rather than increasing the number of members in the nuclear weapons capable club, we ought to be reducing those numbers...or, in a best case scenario, eliminating the club altogether! Besides, kenetic energy and particle beam weapons (not nuclear) represent the future!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> Further. Biden owned Ryan during that debate. With facts, clarity and political deftness. Imagine that. Criticising him as 'demented' and 'rude' is a truly pathetic strawman.


Aren't facts, clarity and political deftness more effective without being demented and rude??


----------



## VictorRomeo

WouldaShoulda said:


> Aren't facts, clarity and political deftness more effective without being demented and rude??


Aw, poor little diddums. And another strawman to boot.


----------



## drlivingston

I will probably get flamed for uttering this. But, in my estimation, we can not win with either candidate. We have an inept incumbent and an equally dismal Republican nominee. The bicameral system is flawed. We, as a nation, are going to suffer either way. Sorry for the depressing outlook.
robert

"Further. Biden owned Ryan during that debate."-----Really? If you have some spare dignity, Joe Biden is looking for some.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> Aw, poor little diddums. And another strawman to boot.


Very well, I shall write you down for "No, facts, clarity and political deftness _are not _more effective without being demented and rude!!"


----------



## VictorRomeo

WouldaShoulda said:


> Very well, I shall write you down for "No, facts, clarity and political deftness _are not _more effective without being demented and rude!!"


If you really must insist upon putting words in my mouth, as is the way with all good right-wing Republicans/conservatives..... then please, knock yourself... But don't mind me.... I'll just sit here and smile that this pisses you all off so much.....


----------



## VictorRomeo

drlivingston said:


> "Further. Biden owned Ryan during that debate."-----Really? If you have some spare dignity, Joe Biden is looking for some.


No, I'd rather donate it to Fox News instead - they're the real disgrace following this debate. They could not attack Biden on substance so they got some quack on to wrap him up in a straight jacket instead.

And it seems a fair few of you here lapped it all up like the cat that got the cream.


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> .....He can't comprehend that a smaller percentage of a larger number generates more revenue. ...


Neither can I, in any viable economic sense.

As each percentile point represents a 100th of the original sum then for every single percent deducted the original sum must be increased 10 x [number of percentile points plus 1] to allow the same revenue. So where 20% of 100 is equal to 1% of 2000, then 20 times the original value of would need to be found just to remain in equivalence. In an economy of billions this is no small figure to generate.


----------



## Bjorn

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Indeed. Rather than increasing the number of members in the nuclear weapons capable club, we ought to be reducing those numbers...or, in a best case scenario, eliminating the club altogether! Besides, kenetic energy and particle beam weapons (not nuclear) represent the future!


Yes... And the first particle beam cannon 'will' be Swedish. And then we will march on Norway, then the world. EVERYTHING WILL BE IN FLAT BOXES THEN. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## mrkleen

VictorRomeo said:


> But don't mind me.... I'll just sit here and smile that this pisses you all off so much.....


Got tired of wasting my breath out here with Woulda and his chicken little, the sky is falling act. But equally enjoying the ride.


----------



## Jovan

I was disappointed that neither candidate discussed tax _reform_, in all honesty. That's the real issue, not tax increases or decreases. For every corporation out there who are firing workers and making less profits every year yet giving the higher ups raises, for every CEO building the biggest f*cking house ever instead of keeping on his workers, there are other businesses (like the one the misses works for) making $2 million a year that are actually using the money saved with their tax breaks (about $90k IIRC) to hire more people and give their employees more benefits. So you can't really pigeonhole every company making over a certain amount into the same "evil corporation" blanket.

At the same time, in another example close to me, it's not fair for a middle aged, married couple making combined $200k a year (who worked for three decades getting to where they are) to give 60% of their income over just because of some weird tax brackets and loopholes they fall into. That is not acceptable.

We need to be talking about tax reform, not just semantics over increasing or decreasing the percentage for each class.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> Neither can I, in any viable economic sense.
> 
> As each percentile point represents a 100th of the original sum then for every single percent deducted the original sum must be increased 10 x [number of percentile points plus 1] to allow the same revenue. So where 20% of 100 is equal to 1% of 2000, then 20 times the original value of would need to be found just to remain in equivalence. In an economy of billions this is no small figure to generate.


Or to put it another way;

Say you have $100 of income you tax at 30% = $30 in revenue.

Reducing the 30% rate by 20% = 26%

Now you only have to increase the taxable income to $120 for the 26% rate to equal $31.20 in revenue.

Seems doable.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> We need to be talking about tax reform, not just semantics over increasing or decreasing the percentage for each class.


Pretty good!!

And Obama had three+ years to do it.

Two with a Senate and House with him.

What did we get??


----------



## Jovan

You're acting as if I've never criticized Obama. Banning CFC inhalers? Making it okay to assassinate US citizens overseas? Those are just two things that make me go "WTF" and there are many others. And yet there are also many things he's done right. It's about even. I'm not as excited for him as I was four years ago though.

It wouldn't matter if he did propose tax reform though. Every Republican in Congress would go violently against it just because of it being from Obama or the Democrats. Look at their history -- they've been voting against things that they originally supported just because Obama approved of it. Common sense things.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Have the Senate or House Democrats cast a single vote for an Obama "budget" in 3+ years??


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> Or to put it another way;
> 
> Say you have $100 of income you tax at 30% = $30 in revenue.
> 
> Reducing the 30% rate by 20% = 26%
> 
> Now you only have to increase the taxable income to $120 for the 26% rate to equal $31.20 in revenue.
> 
> Seems doable.


You are taking the same money from the same people - but only if they are all earning over $120. If not then the net income from taxation is reduced.

Raising the threshold whilst lowering the rate does not necessarily increase tax revenue, as this is actually diminishing the funds available to tax.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> You are taking the same money from the same people - but only if they are all earning over $120. If not then the net income from taxation is reduced.
> 
> Raising the threshold whilst lowering the rate does not necessarily increase tax revenue, as this is actually diminishing the funds available to tax.


Exactly, it only works when robust growth is factored in. Say +4% growth instead of -2%. That would be a +100% increase.

Also, we would have to increase employment by 12million, he did mention that, potentially 12million that were previously paying 30% of .00.

It's not too pie in the sky if you asked me.


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> Exactly, it only works when robust growth is factored in. Say +4% growth instead of -2%. That would be a +100% increase.
> 
> Also, we would have to increase employment by 12million, he did mention that, potentially 12million that were previously paying 30% of .00.
> 
> It's not too pie in the sky if you asked me.


Problem being; the robust growth doesn't end up in the pockets of the working man.

It's the revenue lost because companies like Starbucks and Google and Amazon wriggle out of taxes* that could really make a difference.

*as example, horrifyingly, Starbucks do not pay tax in the UK despite the multi-billion £ turnover of their franchise here


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> Problem being; the robust growth doesn't end up in the pockets of the working man.


You have changed the subject. This is a discussion about what ends up in Government coffers, growth in GDP and revenue.

Not about "fairness."


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> *as example, horrifyingly, Starbucks do not pay tax in the UK despite the multi-billion £ turnover of their franchise here


No VAT??

Their employees paid no tax??


----------



## eagle2250

Bjorn said:


> Yes... And the first particle beam cannon 'will' be Swedish. And then we will march on Norway, then the world. EVERYTHING WILL BE IN FLAT BOXES THEN. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


ROFALOL. I knew there was a reason I got so nervous every time I walked through an Ikea store!  BTW, various evolutions of kinetic energy weapons have been in use for going on twenty years now.


----------



## VictorRomeo

WouldaShoulda said:


> No VAT??
> 
> Their employees paid no tax??


That's not Starbucks tax to pay. Their responsibility is to pay their own corporation tax.


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> You have changed the subject. This is a discussion about what ends up in Government coffers, growth in GDP and revenue.
> 
> Not about "fairness."


Is responding directly to your comment 'changing the subject'? Oh.

You see I thought we were discussing taxable income and I was trying to respond to your point (that the robust growth could be 'factored in') by allowing that this does not neccesarily translate into wages and thence taxable income.

I defer to your infinitely superior grasp of economic strategy.

One thing though, any economy that isn't based on fairness does not elicit my support.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> Is responding directly to your comment 'changing the subject'? Oh.
> 
> One thing though, any economy that isn't based on fairness does not elicit my support.


1) I thought the thrust of this topic was figuring out how the Romney plan can reduce tax rates and still produce greater revenue. If I have succeeded, than we can go off the rails!!

2) So now we should define "fair." I think a Capitalistic based economy where individuals pay the same rate of Federal income tax on earned income is fair. I think the rate on investment and interest income, since it was already taxed when earned, should be subsequently taxed at a lower rate. And I think that the Federal and State governments should operate on balanced bugets with few exceptions and do more with less just like the rest of us.

Agreed??


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) I thought the thrust of this topic was figuring out how the Romney plan can reduce tax rates and still produce greater revenue. If I have succeeded, than we can go off the rails!!
> 
> 2) So now we should define "fair." I think a Capitalistic based economy where individuals pay the same rate of Federal income tax on earned income is fair. I think the rate on investment and interest income, since it was already taxed when earned, should be subsequently taxed at a lower rate. And I think that the Federal and State governments should operate on balanced bugets with few exceptions and do more with less just like the rest of us.
> 
> Agreed??


1) but we *haven't* succeeded. It's a complicated issue. You must expect the discourse to deviate. Simple platitudes will not unravel recession. At any rate you seem content, so I am prepared to move on.

2) No. Not agreed. Let me offer this alternative: free from bias, dishonesty and injustice - is that a definition of 'fair' you can accept?

Show me an ordinary working man who is employing an expensive creative accountant to fiddle income streams through off-shore accounts and thus to avoid millions in tax.

Show me an ordinary working man who's investment portfolio is such a lucrative asset that he frets about the high tax rate on it.

Individuals do not pay the same rate of tax, because the system favours the well off.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> No. Not agreed. Let me offer this alternative: free from bias, dishonesty and injustice - is that a definition of 'fair' you can accept?
> 
> Show me an ordinary working man who is employing an expensive creative accountant to fiddle income streams through off-shore accounts and thus to avoid millions in tax.
> 
> Show me an ordinary working man who's investment portfolio is such a lucrative asset that he frets about the high tax rate on it.
> 
> Individuals do not pay the same rate of tax, because the system favours the well off.


1) Yes. But our visions are not mutually exclusive. Obtaining wealth, even gobs and gobs of wealth, legally, free from bias, dishonesty and injustice, is perfectly fine with me.

2) If you want to discuss closing loopholes I think that is on the table.

3) There are 10s of thousands of Florida retirees that fit that description to a "T!!"

4) Pardon me, you are right. The old Libertarian in me temporarily squeeked out!!


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Yes. But our visions are not mutually exclusive. Obtaining wealth, even gobs and gobs of wealth, legally, free from bias, dishonesty and injustice, is perfectly fine with me.
> 
> 2) If you want to discuss closing loopholes I think that is on the table.
> 
> 3) There are 10s of thousands of Florida retirees that fit that description to a "T!!"
> 
> 4) Pardon me, you are right. The old Libertarian in me temporarily squeeked out!!


1) It's fine with me too. However those who benefit the most from capitalism should be obliged to assist those for whom capitalism fails - or even, at the very least, pay the same rate as some poor stiff working minimum wage.

2) Close loopholes. We agree! :icon_smile:

3) OK, fair point. In these particular circumstances I concede.

4) I have been accused of both communism and fascism in the same political debate. That's probably squeeking out here too. ahem.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

I had to mature for some time before realizing that Isolationism is an outdated and failed foreign policy and that recreational drugs, prostitution and gambling are not "victimless" crimes.


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> I had to mature for some time before realizing that Isolationism is an outdated and failed foreign policy and that recreational drugs, prostitution and gambling are not "victimless" crimes.


They are simply crimes as a result of prohibition. More petty laws bequeath more petty crime.

All of those pursuits would be victimless if they were not left to organised criminal business' to operate.

Isn't this changing the subject though? I don't mind at all, it's just I gained the impression that you did. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Yes, this is off the rails mode now!!

Just because recreational drugs are legal, doesn't meen the users life is less destroyed.

Just because prostitution is legal, it doesn't deminish the degradation of the prostitute. Even though she is "asking for it"

Gambling is also a vice that relies on victims to survive, not $2 punters like me. 

But the worst part is who the victims overwhelmingly are; The working class.


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> Yes, this is off the rails mode now!!
> 
> Just because recreational drugs are legal, doesn't meen the users life is less destroyed.
> 
> Just because prostitution is legal, it doesn't deminish the degradation of the prostitute. Even though she is "asking for it"
> 
> Gambling is also a vice that relies on victims to survive, not $2 punters like me.
> 
> But the worst part is who the victims overwhelmingly are; The working class.


A drug addict's lifestyle, the lifestyle of crime, is destructive. Heroin, as example, is a benign substance.

A prostitute's lifestyle, the lifestyle of crime, is degrading. The willing exchange of cash for sexual favours is neutral.

A gambler's lifestyle, the lifestyle of crime, is victimising. Speculation for potential monetary reward is reasonable.

There is no class issue inately involved, except where poverty encourages crime to be neccessary to fund and/or manage these three endeavours.

Many chaps enjoy a snort of charlie, with a high class hooker, hitting the tables in vegas - hardly working class.


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> A drug addict's lifestyle, the lifestyle of crime, is destructive. Heroin, as example, is a benign substance.
> 
> A prostitute's lifestyle, the lifestyle of crime, is degrading. The willing exchange of cash for sexual favours is neutral.
> 
> A gambler's lifestyle, the lifestyle of crime, is victimising. Speculation for potential monetary reward is reasonable.
> 
> There is no class issue inately involved, except where poverty encourages crime to be neccessary to fund and/or manage these three endeavours.
> 
> Many chaps enjoy a snort of charlie, with a high class hooker, hitting the tables in vegas - hardly working class.


Can't agree.

A drug addict's lifestyle, as a drug addict, is destructive (to himself and others). Alcohol is an obvious example of a legal drug that shows that this does not pivot on the legality question.

A prostitute's lifestyle, as a prostitute, will in very many cases be degrading irrespective of whether or not prostitution is a criminal offence. Precisely for the the reason you hint at - poverty makes people think they have no option but to make money this way. And often, it would seem, to support a drug habit.

A gambler's lifestyle, as an addict, is destructive (to himself and others). Much gaming is perfectly legal in the UK, but it does not stop lives being destroyed by it (with the addict gambling away money in many cases that should be going to supporting his or her dependents).

In speaking of victims, I think WouldaShoulda was talking about the many people whose lives are desolated by these activities, not rich playboys in Vegas.

I have left out any personal moral view about these activities, as I simply wished to respond to your suggestion that these activities would be victimless but for criminalisation.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> Can't agree.
> 
> A drug addict's lifestyle, as a drug addict, is destructive (to himself and others). Alcohol is an obvious example of a legal drug that shows that this does not pivot on the legality question.
> 
> A prostitute's lifestyle, as a prostitute, will in very many cases be degrading irrespective of whether or not prostitution is a criminal offence. Precisely for the the reason you hint at - poverty makes people think they have no option but to make money this way. And often, it would seem, to support a drug habit.
> 
> A gambler's lifestyle, as an addict, is destructive (to himself and others). Much gaming is perfectly legal in the UK, but it does not stop lives being destroyed by it (with the addict gambling away money in many cases that should be going to supporting his or her dependents).
> 
> In speaking of victims, I think WouldaShoulda was talking about the many people whose lives are desolated by these activities, not rich playboys in Vegas.
> 
> I have left out any personal moral view about these activities, as I simply wished to respond to your suggestion that these activities would be victimless but for criminalisation.


Rushing out to a restaurant but, in the interim -

drugs are _not_ intrinsically destructive, this is fallacy. You may take heroin your whole life without any degradation of body or brain. It is the pattern of criminality which makes the habit so pernicious, the inflated cost, the impurities of product, also the dislocation from morality and legality in extension. Setting aside the problems arising from those with compulsive behaviour generally (e.g. alcoholics, over-eaters) de-criminalised drug use is inevitible and reasonable. More people in the UK have died playing polo than from taking MDMA, I'm sure you will remember the debacle surrounding this fact.

Rich playboys in Vegas was cited to illustrate that none of these issues are exclusively class issues, that was all.


----------



## mrkleen

Shaver said:


> *drugs are not intrinsically destructive, this is fallacy.* You may take heroin your whole life without any degradation of body or brain. It is the pattern of criminality which makes the habit so pernicious, the inflated cost, the impurities of product, also the dislocation from morality and legality in extension. Setting aside the problems arising from those with compulsive behaviour generally (e.g. alcoholics, over-eaters) de-criminalised drug use is inevitible and reasonable. More people in the UK have died playing polo than from taking MDMA, I'm sure you will remember the debacle surrounding this fact.


Completely right and well stated.

Those in opposition - always go all the way off the deep end, to the extreme of "drag addict" or "street walker" or guy who blows his life savings in a weekend in Vegas to try and prove their point. Mind you, these are often the same people who cry out for smaller government - trying to impose their morals on society at large and FAILING miserably. The war on drugs is utter disaster for all but those in the prison for profit business.

The vast majority of people who smoke a bit on the weekend - or spend a few trips abroad doing a line or two - DO NOT turn into drug addicts. Anymore than those who spend a night or two a week hoisting a few pints become drunks.

It happens from time to time, but that fact is a red herring more than proof of any sort of "negative" that is inherent in those activities. Most normal, well adjusted people can take it off the rails from time to time - and get right back to work on Monday morning.

In the short term, there is far too much money in the criminalization of drugs - to hope for any real talk of reform. But in the long run, as Shaver said - legalization of at least some substances currently deemed illegal - is inevitable.


----------



## Shaver

Thank you mrkleen. I had expected to stand alone on this issue and appreciate your support. 

So many otherwise reasonable men transmogrify into reactionaries when these subjects are broached. Too many fellows who have no direct experience or even access to credible information believe themselves to be experts with valid opinion. 

Morals should not be ascribed to substances; law should not be applied to consenting sexual experience. All too often those who speak in favour of de-criminalisation are cast as dangerous radicals by those possessing opposition via (albeit often unconscious) moral bias. 

According to a recent New Scientist magazine article 99% of banknotes circulating in London when forensically tested revealed traces of cocaine. Given that drug addicts tend towards use of hypodermic syringes (to maximise potency via immediacy of delivery and also to minimise wastage) then this banknote snorting technique is the habit of the casual user. So then, there are so many casual users in London that 99% of banknotes are contaminated. Drug use is not contained to the homeless, the petty thieves, the hopeless addicts. It is the choice of the Western world. It is not a case of right or wrong, it is what it is. Demonising those who fall prey to a monomania does not prejudice the chemical itself. 

Prostitution is one extreme end of a spectrum of human interaction. Many relationships revolve around personal financial gain. How many marry not to the love of their life but influenced by wealth, status, security? How many 'trade-off’s occur within ordinary relationships, bestowed favours rewarding well received gifts? It may be a stark bargain, that of street prostitution, but it is neither morally informed nor debasing. Moreover it is not always driven by abject poverty. The money is good; the hours are good, no skills or education required. Not all people are so precious about the sexual act as to be easily degraded by its casual transaction. 

Gambling permeates all of our lives – the best and the worst of us gamble. Commerce is a gamble, Capitalism is a gamble, life is a gamble. The much vaunted City financial district (Wall St. as American comparison) generates its income from a particularly sinister mode of gambling. Gambling is the impulse that took us from a tree on the African savannah unto the Moon. 

Criminals thrive on supplying the natural human demand for those items or experiences which are desired but are illegal. 

To conclude, and echoing mrkleen's sentiment: examples of those in thrall to an activity - especially one in the purview of criminals - are simply ineligible paradigm in any aspiration to reduce perception of the activity's intrinsic nature to that which is dangerous, degrading or destructive. 

Now, my partner is indulging me with a long week-end at a currently undisclosed country retreat. If I am unable to respond until perhaps Tuesday do not fear that I have lost stomach for the debate. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Jovan

Shaver, mrkleen: :icon_cheers:

All I have to say is... legalize pot and gay marriage. Those alone would give a decent boost to the economy.

Besides the economic boost and taxing it like the other legal recreational drugs, there would be less people in prison for drug charges and it would put a lot of the ruthless cartels out of business. As has been said, the war on drugs is a fruitless one.

Don't believe me about same sex marriage? Just read about the effect it had it NYC alone. But there would also be more families with tax benefits that could spend money. That's what we need.

https://money.cnn.com/2012/07/24/pf/gay-marriage-economic-impact/index.htm

In the end, everyone would win... if the so-called _fiscal_ conservatives can put aside their moral issues and see the logic. But I'm fully ready for the Fox News stereotypes to bash me over the head with how I'm "wrong" about this.


----------



## Apatheticviews

You can't tax something that anyone can grow. I'm all for legalization, if only because it's a stupid prohibition. Unfortunately, without the ability to regulate, the government is unwilling to legalize. 

As for gay marriage, it would actually result in lower taxes gained, not higher. I'm not disagreeing that it would result in more money in the economy, but I'm a firm believer that Federal (as opposed to State & Local) taxes should be used to control inflation, not as Revenue. That said, this is a civil rights issue, and should be treated as such.

----------------

With all that said, I hate paying taxes as much as anyone. I don't believe that I should pay more % just because I make more. And I sure as hell don't believe the government will ever be ENTITLED to 40% of what I produce. If everyone pays 15% (same rate), that means $7.5k for every $50K (median income per household), or $3M (that's 400 median earners worth of taxes) for every $20M earner (what the reports say Romney brought in).

What we really run into however is that , once you start getting into those upper level brackets, people have incorporated to protect themselves. Hitting a Company (sole owner) for 15% of it's profits, and then hitting the owner again for 15% on his paycheck (which really is the companies profits), doesn't make anyone want to GROW their business. It puts a person in a position where it is better to have minimal growth. When you start making the % bigger, the taxes sting more.

As an example, Company A makes $1M in profit, and pays $150K in corporate taxes, leaving $850K as PAYROLL to its Stockholders (Profit = their Payroll). That $850K gets hit 15% again leaving $722.5K.

Company B pays the same 15%, but then our stockholders pay 40% leaving $510K. It has effectively reduced the stockholders Return on investment (aka PAYROLL) by 49%.

Company C pays 30% and then the stockholders pay another 30%. $700K leading to $490K. 

The examples above show how slippery things become. As an investor, I'm watching my investment just bleed away. I'm all for an element of risk, but watching 50% just go away, to an inefficient government doesn't make sense.


----------



## Balfour

I hope you had a pleasant weekend! As you know (but others may not), this is all posted in the spirit of cheerful debate.



Shaver said:


> A drug addict's lifestyle, the lifestyle of crime, is destructive. Heroin, as example, is a benign substance.
> 
> A prostitute's lifestyle, the lifestyle of crime, is degrading. The willing exchange of cash for sexual favours is neutral.
> 
> A gambler's lifestyle, the lifestyle of crime, is victimising. Speculation for potential monetary reward is reasonable.
> 
> There is no class issue inately involved, except where poverty encourages crime to be neccessary to fund and/or manage these three endeavours.
> 
> Many chaps enjoy a snort of charlie, with a high class hooker, hitting the tables in vegas - hardly working class.





Balfour said:


> Can't agree.
> 
> A drug addict's lifestyle, as a drug addict, is destructive (to himself and others). Alcohol is an obvious example of a legal drug that shows that this does not pivot on the legality question.
> 
> A prostitute's lifestyle, as a prostitute, will in very many cases be degrading irrespective of whether or not prostitution is a criminal offence. Precisely for the the reason you hint at - poverty makes people think they have no option but to make money this way. And often, it would seem, to support a drug habit.
> 
> A gambler's lifestyle, as an addict, is destructive (to himself and others). Much gaming is perfectly legal in the UK, but it does not stop lives being destroyed by it (with the addict gambling away money in many cases that should be going to supporting his or her dependents).
> 
> In speaking of victims, I think WouldaShoulda was talking about the many people whose lives are desolated by these activities, not rich playboys in Vegas.
> 
> I have left out any personal moral view about these activities, as I simply wished to respond to your suggestion that these activities would be victimless but for criminalisation.


Thank you for your further posts, but I think we want to have different debates. The debate about legalisation doesn't interest me. Indeed, in the posts I quote above, we may even be talking at cross purposes (firing off of your use of the expression 'addiction').

But I do disagree somewhat strongly with the propositions you advance (or appear to advance) in the post quoted above.

At best you create a false dichotomy between 'criminal' and therefore - as you would have it - harmful behaviours, and benign or neutral non-criminal behaviours. At worse, you imply that the only reason why drug addiction, prostitution or gambling are degrading or destructive is because they are criminalised.

To borrow from the effervescent vocabulary of the Mayor of my city, the latter characterisation is 'an inverted pyramid of piffle'. Drug addiction (whether to illegal or legal drugs) devastates many lives (including the innocent dependents of drug addicts). Addiction to gambling has led to the ruin of many (including innocent dependents). Little girls do not grow up wanting to be prostitutes and few parents would regard this as an occupation in which they would wish their daughters (or for that matter, their sons) to engage.



Shaver said:


> So many otherwise reasonable men transmogrify into reactionaries when these subjects are broached. Too many fellows who have no direct experience or even access to credible information believe themselves to be experts with valid opinion.
> 
> Morals should not be ascribed to substances; law should not be applied to consenting sexual experience. All too often those who speak in favour of de-criminalisation are cast as dangerous radicals by those possessing opposition via (albeit often unconscious) moral bias.


Arguments that start off by playing the man, rather than the ball, always evoke a certain degree of suspicion in me. Nevertheless, from our previous civilised - if occasionally heated - debates, I am assuming these sentiments are not directed at me in particular.

I happily confess I am no particular expert on these matters. I do not practise criminal law (although I had some exposure to criminal trials during law school). I am not a law enforcement professional, doctor, social worker, etc. But the legal expression here is 'judicial notice': (*) If one looks around, it is obvious that drugs, gambling and prostitution ruin many lives.

The only point I am trying to make here is that I do not think there can be any sensible debate around this issue without acknowledging this basic fact. As I say, I am not seeking to advance a view from a personal moral perspective on whether such activities are inherently undesirable or on whether criminalisation makes the position better or worse.

But I would struggle to respect anyone who pretended that addiction to drugs or gambling, or prostitution, did not result in very many cases in significant social harm. For my part, I am quite happy to acknowledge that some people can take drugs without coming to harm. This is not of course the same as addiction - most definitions use that to refer to the harmful abuse of substances or activities.

(*) In the absence of a better source to hand: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Judicial+Notice



WouldaShoulda said:


> But the worst part is who the victims overwhelmingly are; The working class.





Shaver said:


> Many chaps enjoy a snort of charlie, with a high class hooker, hitting the tables in vegas - hardly working class.





Balfour said:


> In speaking of victims, I think WouldaShoulda was talking about the many people whose lives are desolated by these activities, not rich playboys in Vegas.





Shaver said:


> Rich playboys in Vegas was cited to illustrate that none of these issues are exclusively class issues, that was all.


I know you disdain the shorthand of "straw man" (and I agree it is much abused), so let me instead suggest that this seems to be an almost frivolous mischaracterisation of what WouldaShoulda was saying. He was talking about the "victims" and did not pretend to exclusivity in his post. His "overwhelmingly" may overstate it, but I have a suspicion that the evidence would establish that drug and gambling abuse, and being forced into lives of prostitution,(**) disproportionately affect the poorer and more vulnerable in society.

(**) I am using 'force' in the broader sense of being driven into such a life by economic factors rather than compulsion against one's will, so presumably satisfying your "willing exchange" criterion?


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> I hope you had a pleasant weekend!


I did, thank you. Visiting Avebury, Purton and Bourton-on-the-Water, corners of England which enlivened my spirit.



Balfour said:


> As you know (but others may not), this is all posted in the spirit of cheerful debate.


Of course and always.



Balfour said:


> Thank you for your further posts, but I think we want to have different debates. The debate about legalisation doesn't interest me. Indeed, in the posts I quote above, we may even be talking at cross purposes (firing off of your use of the expression 'addiction').


Well you did join in with this debate, so shouldn't you be having the debate which I am having? :redface:

I am uncertain, I admit, as to the meaning of 'firing off' within your paranthesis so am unable to address this statement.

However preambling to elucidation: the nature of the terminology 'drugs' and 'addiction'. To speak of the components of an umbrella term as if they are one substance with one effect, each unto the other, limits progress towards the centre of the issue. Unlike varieties of alcohol, the different drugs can bestow a multitudinous array of effects upon the mind and body. Some are not at all addictive, some are highly addictive, these latter often confused by non-neuroscientists with the former, based on the human drive toward pleasure. There is so-called psychological addiction, a misnomer if ever there was. Those who speak of addiction that is not measurable in physical effect are fraudulent - emotional compulsion being another matter entirely. Further some drugs are benignly addictive (it is preferable to consider this habituated tolerance). To confuse matters, certain psychologies and physiologies exhibit strong pre-dispositions or aversions to the effects of various substances.



Balfour said:


> But I do disagree somewhat strongly with the propositions you advance (or appear to advance) in the post quoted above.
> 
> At best you create a false dichotomy between 'criminal' and therefore - as you would have it - harmful behaviours, and benign or neutral non-criminal behaviours. At worse, you imply that the only reason why drug addiction, prostitution or gambling are degrading or destructive is because they are criminalised.


I am afraid that my position is, almost, that which you characterise as 'at worse'. The significant negative impact to the individual is engendered by organised crime (of whatever scale) controlling these normal human behaviours.



Balfour said:


> To borrow from the effervescent vocabulary of the Mayor of my city, the latter characterisation is 'an inverted pyramid of piffle'. Drug addiction (whether to illegal or legal drugs) devastates many lives (including the innocent dependents of drug addicts). Addiction to gambling has led to the ruin of many (including innocent dependents).  Little girls do not grow up wanting to be prostitutes and few parents would regard this as an occupation in which they would wish their daughters (or for that matter, their sons) to engage.
> 
> Arguments that start off by playing the man, rather than the ball, always evoke a certain degree of suspicion in me. Nevertheless, from our previous civilised - if occasionally heated - debates, I am assuming these sentiments are not directed at me in particular.


I did not realise I was playing the man. Absolutely I was not directing this toward you, at any rate. It is simply my almost exclusive experience - morality informs opinion disguised as fact. All this and still, is not describing my logic as 'an inverted pyramid of piffle' rather suspiciously playing me not the ball? Certainly it seems harsher than my referring to the normal human tendency to entangle personal morals with public behaviors.

To tackle one aspect of the above, highlighted purple. You are correct but then neither do little girls do not grow up dreaming of the many sexual practices which they will come to happily indulge. Parents do not look forward to the day their daughter engages in the various sexual acts. This appears to be morality not reason.



Balfour said:


> I happily confess I am no particular expert on these matters. I do not practise criminal law (although I had some exposure to criminal trials during law school). I am not a law enforcement professional, doctor, social worker, etc. But the legal expression here is 'judicial notice': (*) If one looks around, it is obvious that drugs, gambling and prostitution ruin many lives.
> 
> The only point I am trying to make here is that I do not think there can be any sensible debate around this issue without acknowledging this basic fact. As I say, I am not seeking to advance a view from a personal moral perspective on whether such activities are inherently undesirable or on whether criminalisation makes the position better or worse.
> 
> But I would struggle to respect anyone who pretended that addiction to drugs or gambling, or prostitution, did not result in very many cases in significant social harm. For my part, I am quite happy to acknowledge that some people can take drugs without coming to harm. This is not of course the same as addiction - most definitions use that to refer to the harmful abuse of substances or activities.
> 
> (*) In the absence of a better source to hand: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Judicial+Notice


You may say that the debate cannot be sensible unless framed as you prefer and I dispute this limitation - and I believe that I am fully capable of doing so whilst remaining sensible. These three occupations do not fall under judicial notice, it is not an obvious conclusion, nor matter of public record, that in and of themselves all these occupations are destructive.



Balfour said:


> I know you disdain the shorthand of "straw man" (and I agree it is much abused), so let me instead suggest that this seems to be an almost frivolous mischaracterisation of what WouldaShoulda was saying. He was talking about the "victims" and did not pretend to exclusivity in his post. His "overwhelmingly" may overstate it, but I have a suspicion that the evidence would establish that drug and gambling abuse, and being forced into lives of prostitution,(**) disproportionately affect the poorer and more vulnerable in society.
> 
> (**) I am using 'force' in the broader sense of being driven into such a life by economic factors rather than compulsion against one's will, so presumably satisfying your "willing exchange" criterion?


It is crime which disproportionately affects the poorer and more vulnerable members of society. How this crime manifests itself is sometimes drugs, sometimes prostitution, sometimes this, sometimes that.

But, I thought we had addressed the above already, no?

I would have been much more interested to read your response to the bulk of my last post (#46). The case for Drugs, Prostitution and Gambling being normal human endeavours yet pernicious when corrupted by crime is tangible. Evidencing those who have succumbed to the weakness of body and spirit to pursue these occupations at exclusion of all else, detrimentally to their own lives and the lives of those around them, does not prove that the occupation itself is corrupting, degrading or destructive.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Having listened to the radio to the debate last night, I'd like to know where these new countries are that Romney mentioned - Molly and Eeron. 

Also, I never thought I'd say it but Obama came across as quite the arrogant American with a couple of comments, one being, "America is the only indispensible country in the world" Really? Thanks moron! 

Also Obama named a new country as well, Erock.

Erack as we say in Yeurp or Eyerack and Eyeran as most Americans say,
but Erock??? Really Mr Barrogant Obama?


----------



## Balfour

Glad you had a pleasant break - I haven't been to Wiltshire since childhood.

I think we probably have pretty irreconcilable views on this one.

The risk of summarising positions is that these are then requoted outside the context of the debate and have nits picked from them. But let me try: 

 My view is that it is obvious that drugs, gambling and prostitution ruin many lives. This is irrespective of whether they are legal or illegal. This is irrespective of whether one thinks that such activities are inherently worthy of moral obloquy.


Your view - and I hesitate even more before seeking to sum up someone else's view - is that the harm from these activities results primarily from their criminalisation.

I'm not sure we will move past these positions. But I should pick up a few points in your last post:



Shaver said:


> Well you did join in with this debate, so shouldn't you be having the debate which I am having?


 Not sure it works like that. And, technically, didn't WouldaShoulda start the debate? Should we apply to him for a ruling as to whether this is within scope? 

But, seriously, I think one is entitled to take issue with a premiss advanced by someone without wanting to thrash out the rather tired debate about the decriminalisation of drugs. As my previous posts illustrate, this was what I was seeking to do.

Your position seems as unrealistically black and white as those who do not acknowledge that criminalisation creates its own dangers.



Shaver said:


> I am uncertain, I admit, as to the meaning of 'firing off' within your paranthesis so am unable to address this statement.


By firing off, I meant prompted by your use of the expression "addiction" rather than "use".



Shaver said:


> However preambling to elucidation: the nature of the terminology 'drugs' and 'addiction'. To speak of the components of an umbrella term as if they are one substance with one effect, each unto the other, limits progress towards the centre of the issue. Unlike varieties of alcohol, the different drugs can bestow a multitudinous array of effects upon the mind and body. Some are not at all addictive, some are highly addictive, these latter often confused by non-neuroscientists with the former, based on the human drive toward pleasure. There is so-called psychological addiction, a misnomer if ever there was. Those who speak of addiction that is not measurable in physical effect are fraudulent - emotional compulsion being another matter entirely. Further some drugs are benignly addictive (it is preferable to consider this habituated tolerance). To confuse matters, certain psychologies and physiologies exhibit strong pre-dispositions or aversions to the effects of various substances.


Lots of people use substances or engage in activities that cause themselves harm and, more importantly, cause harm to others. Lots of people lack the inclination or ability to control their use of such substances / activities. While one can descend into a confusing miasma of scientific debate about the meaning of addiction, this is all I need to do to establish that there is a problem with the use of some substances by some people. I would go further and say by a substantial and troubling number of people resulting in real social harm and economic cost to society.



Shaver said:


> I am afraid that my position is, almost, that which you characterise as 'at worse'. The significant negative impact to the individual is engendered by organised crime (of whatever scale) controlling these normal human behaviours.


 (emphasis added)

This actually seems less absolutist that your previous position, of contrasting harmful criminal activities with benign or neutral non-criminal activities.

Of course the criminal context can enhance the dangers of drug addiction, prostitution or gambling. If we were having a full debate on criminalisation, that would of course have to be set against the advantages of criminalisation.

In the UK of course there are legal harmful drugs, gambling is regulated in a fairly light-touch way (compared, say, to the US) and the exchange of sex for money is not itself illegal (although certain activities related to prostitution are criminalised, for example brothel keeping).



Shaver said:


> I did not realise I was playing the man. Absolutely I was not directing this toward you, at any rate. It is simply my almost exclusive experience - morality informs opinion disguised as fact. All this and still, is not describing my logic as 'an inverted pyramid of piffle' rather suspiciously playing me not the ball? Certainly it seems harsher than my referring to the normal human tendency to entangle personal morals with public behaviors.


 (emphasis added)

Thank you for acquitting me of being a foaming-at-the-mouth reactionary!

But in the text to which I have given emphasis, you rather attenuate your previous statement that "o many otherwise reasonable men transmogrify into reactionaries when these subjects are broached. Too many fellows who have no direct experience or even access to credible information believe themselves to be experts with valid opinion."

I think anyone who reads that post can see that you were trying, in part, to make your case by suggesting that those with opposing views were often ignorant reactionaries. If that's not playing the 'men' (against your position) I don't know what is!

As for my comment, well, perhaps I was playing the man a little. But it was primarily a colourful characterisation of your position and reasoning, which, for the reasons I have given I regard as fundamentally flawed. EDIT: And not because you are ignorant or your views are unworthy of weight or because you are a hysterical liberal (or whatever the antonym of reactionary is), but because in my view your assertions do not match the realities of the world.



Shaver said:


> To tackle one aspect of the above, highlighted purple. You are correct but then neither do little girls do not grow up dreaming of the many sexual practices which they will come to happily indulge. Parents do not look forward to the day their daughter engages in the various sexual acts. This appears to be morality not reason.


Are you posting this with a straight face? Come on!

There is a world of difference between the strength of feeling that most people would have about not wanting their children to grow up to earn their living by selling sex for money(*) and in 'not wanting to think about their children's sex lives'.

(*) Including, I would suggest, in a legal and regulated environment.



Shaver said:


> You may say that the debate cannot be sensible unless framed as you prefer and I dispute this limitation - and I believe that I am fully capable of doing so whilst remaining sensible.


 (emphasis added)

No doubt.:devil:



Shaver said:


> These three occupations do not fall under judicial notice, it is not an obvious conclusion, nor matter of public record, that in and of themselves all these occupations are destructive.


But this wasn't what I said. My position is, as posted previously, "If one looks around, it is obvious that drugs, gambling and prostitution ruin many lives."


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> .....I think we probably have pretty irreconcilable views on this one.
> 
> The risk of summarising positions is that these are then requoted outside the context of the debate and have nits picked from them. But let me try:
> 
> My view is that it is obvious that drugs, gambling and prostitution ruin many lives. This is irrespective of whether they are legal or illegal. This is irrespective of whether one thinks that such activities are inherently worthy of moral obloquy.
> 
> 
> Your view - and I hesitate even more before seeking to sum up someone else's view - is that the harm from these activities results primarily from their criminalisation.


I hope that I have never been guilty of decontextualisation but I will try especially hard to avoid this here, for you. By the way - you made me look up a word (obloquy). First time that has ever happened to me amongst the fora. You deserve a prize. :smile: Will my being as honest as I can be and not merely trying to score points suffice? It will. Good, here goes:

DGP (Drugs, Gambling & Prostitution) ruin some lives. Many more practitioners' lives are not ruined. Of those that are ruined, there would be many less if these activities were outside of the sphere of influence of crime.



Balfour said:


> Not sure it works like that. And, technically, didn't WouldaShoulda start the debate? Should we apply to him for a ruling as to whether this is within scope? :wink2:


You have me there. :redface:



Balfour said:


> But, seriously, I think one is entitled to take issue with a premiss advanced by someone without wanting to thrash out the rather tired debate about the decriminalisation of drugs. As my previous posts illustrate, this was what I was seeking to do.


I may not have made myself clear but I do not care one way or the other if DGP are decriminalised or not. This premise does not inform my thinking.



Balfour said:


> Your positions seems as unrealistically black and white as those who do not acknowledge that criminalisation creates its own dangers.


My position is based upon the truth as I experience it - neither black nor white and certainly open to modification as circumstances dictate.



Balfour said:


> Lots of people use substances or engage in activities that cause themselves harm and, more importantly, cause harm to others. Lots of people lack the inclination or ability to control their use of such substances / activities. While one can descend into a confusing miasma of scientific debate about the meaning of addiction, this is all I need to do to establish that there is a problem with the use of some substances by some people. I would go further and say by a substantial and troubling number of people resulting in really social harm and economic cost to society.


I would have thought that the confusing miasma of scientific debate as to the meaning of addiction would be utterly central to the consideration of the social problem of drugs.



Balfour said:


> But in the text to which I have given emphasis, you rather attenuate your previous statement that "o many otherwise reasonable men transmogrify into reactionaries when these subjects are broached. Too many fellows who have no direct experience or even access to credible information believe themselves to be experts with valid opinion."
> 
> I think anyone who reads that post can see that you were trying, in part, to make your case by suggesting that those with opposing views were often ignorant reactionaries. If that's not playing the 'men' (against your position) I don't know what is!




Not a bit of it. The views of others can be in exact alignment with my own and still be reactionary or put forward by those lacking anything but their feelings to support their opinions.



Balfour said:


> Are you posting this with a straight face? Come on!
> 
> There is a world of difference between the strength of feeling that most people would have about not wanting their children to grow up to earn their living by selling sex for money(*) and in 'not wanting to think about their children's sex lives'.
> 
> (*) Including, I would suggest, in a legal and regulated environment.


As you know I am always posting with a smile on my face, but if you mean 'am I serious?' then yes, I am. The difference is quantitative not qualitative.



Balfour said:


> My position is, as posted previously, "If one looks around, it is obvious that drugs, gambling and prostitution ruin many lives."


I still dispute that this position has value, even under the terms of judicial notice, and will conclude this post where I started it, with this: DGP (Drugs, Gambling & Prostitution) ruin some lives. Many more practitioners' lives are not ruined. Of those that are ruined, there would be many less if these activities were outside of the sphere of influence of crime.

You advised that we may be irreconcilable in our views. Yet as reasonably intelligent men (and not discussing the colour of shoes!) I hope that we absolutely could be able to find some ground which is common to both of our opinions, as informed by fact.

No nits picked, I hope you will agree. :smile:


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> I hope that I have never been guilty of decontextualisation ...
> No nits picked, I hope you will agree. :smile:


I will leave the last substantive word on this to you (without implying agreement or submission on my part!). But I did want to say that I did not have you in mind when I referred to this - I have observed in other debates on the interwebz, though, that sometimes someone sums up their position only then to be mischaracterised to the point of vilifiction by less forensic and fair-minded souls who join the thread later on.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> I will leave the last substantive word on this to you (without implying agreement or submission on my part!). But I did want to say that I did not have you in mind when I referred to this - I have observed in other debates on the interwebz, though, that sometimes someone sums up their position only then to be mischaracterised to the point of vilifiction by less forensic and fair-minded souls who join the thread later on.


You may not imply agreement or submission but I may infer.

Kidding.:devil:


----------



## arkirshner

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Having listened to the radio to the debate last night, I'd like to know where these new countries are that Romney mentioned - Molly and Eeron.
> 
> Also, I never thought I'd say it but Obama came across as quite the arrogant American with a couple of comments, one being, "America is the only indispensible country in the world" Really? Thanks -------!
> 
> Also Obama named a new country as well, Erock.
> 
> Erack as we say in Yeurp or Eyerack and Eyeran as most Americans say,
> but Erock??? Really Mr Barrogant Obama?


 Madeleine Albright first articulated the concept in this form: "We [America] are the indispensable nation ". At the time many misinterpreted her meaning, and so she explained "indispensable nation" just means that most of the hard international problems can't be solved without American engagement. Whether one agrees with, or opposes American policy, she simply said it the way it is. The only reason so many around the world show an interest in, have an opinion about, and care about American policy, is because, as was the case with UK policy in the 19th century, American policy makes a difference, around the world in way that the policy of say France or even Russia does not.

You certainly have a right to your opinion about our President, indeed many Americans also think him arrogant. However, the 6 letter adjective you used is out of place. Not because an American president is immune from such invective but because the adjective is a jarring breach of the standard of decorum of this forum. There are many websites, including that other large men's clothing site, on which the adjective you chose is commonplace. To preserve the decorum of this forum, I request you edit out the adjective and replace it with one more appropriate to AAAC,


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> You may not imply agreement or submission but I may infer.
> 
> Kidding.:devil:


:biggrin2:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

arkirshner said:


> At the time many misinterpreted her meaning, and so she explained "indispensable nation" just means that most of the hard international problems can't be solved without American engagement.


There's nothing to misinterpret, it is just pure arrogance.

BTW, I've removed the swearword, sorry, I was just so irritated at his attitude. 
Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with a Republican over a Democrat.


----------



## wrwhiteknight

arkirshner said:


> The only reason so many around the world show an interest in, have an opinion about, and care about American policy, is because, as was the case with UK policy in the 19th century, American policy makes a difference, around the world in way that the policy of say France or even Russia does not.
> 
> You certainly have a right to your opinion about our President, indeed many Americans also think him arrogant.


Great points arkirshner. It should be revealing enough that the candidates have three debates, one of which is an entire two hour uninterrupted segment on foreign policy; America is very externally focussed. We are the only country in the world that defines itself in a _major_ way by what we do outside of our borders.

Why do people find it unpalatable that America views itself as indispensable to international problems? Whether you agree or not, and I certainly disagree with a large number of American foreign actions taken in the last 100 years, does it not make sense that our leaders must often exude a confidence that may come across as arrogant so as to instil the country and our actions with this sense of purpose?


----------



## Mike Petrik

wrwhiteknight said:


> Great points arkirshner. It should be revealing enough that the candidates have three debates, one of which is an entire two hour uninterrupted segment on foreign policy; America is very externally focussed. We are the only country in the world that defines itself in a _major_ way by what we do outside of our borders.
> 
> Why do people find it unpalatable that America views itself as indispensable to international problems? Whether you agree or not, and I certainly disagree with a large number of American foreign actions taken in the last 100 years, does it not make sense that our leaders must often exude a confidence that may come across as arrogant so as to instil the country and our actions with this sense of purpose?


Our non-American friends are aware of President Obama's statement because they are following our presidential campaign and debates. Americans do not return that favor. The reason has nothing to do with arrogance. While I am not a fan of our President, I don't think his use of the word "indispensible" was inaccurate in context. If this offends anyone, too bad. My apology tours are limited to Mrs P.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

wrwhiteknight said:


> We are the *only* country in the world that defines itself in a _major_ way by what we do outside of our borders.


Now I'm not sure if that is also arrogance or simply misplaced pride. :icon_smile_wink:



wrwhiteknight said:


> does it not make sense that our leaders must often exude a confidence that may come across as arrogant so as to instil the country and our actions with this sense of purpose?


Arrogance is not a desirable leadership quality regardless of the reason why.


----------



## arkirshner

Earl of Ormonde said:


> There's nothing to misinterpret, it is just pure arrogance.
> 
> BTW, I've removed the swearword, sorry, I was just so irritated at his attitude.
> Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with a Republican over a Democrat.


Thank you.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## arkirshner

Mike Petrik said:


> My apology tours are limited to Mrs P.


Brilliant!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Mike Petrik said:


> My apology tours are limited to Mrs P.


Wait a minute, there was no "apology tour!!"

*What it means:* Romney was in this debate than he has been in the past. This ad uses one of his more aggressive lines to take the fight back to Obama. The Fact Checker Four Pinocchios, saying "the apology tour never happened."

Joe Biben voice;

Hahaha,

Oh Man!!

Ha, ha!!


----------



## Mike Petrik

WouldaShoulda said:


> Wait a minute, there was no "apology tour!!"
> 
> *What it means:* Romney was in this debate than he has been in the past. This ad uses one of his more aggressive lines to take the fight back to Obama. The Fact Checker Four Pinocchios, saying "the apology tour never happened."
> 
> Joe Biben voice;
> 
> Hahaha,
> 
> Oh Man!!
> 
> Ha, ha!!


Yes, I agree that that O's words would certainly not qualify as apologies by the standards of Mrs. P. Of course her standards would have involved jewelry. A signed copy of my scribblings about myself would have compounded perceived felonies, irreversibly I'm afraid.


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> *What it means:* Romney was in this debate than he has been in the past.


Cautions and Conciliatory? Is that what you guys are calling it when you flip flop on every substantive foreign policy issue of the last 2 years and agree with your opponent.

Romney got his ass handed to him last night. Game. Set. Match.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Bring back the Ironclads, I say! Ironclads!

Cautions and Conciliatory?! Best giggle yet from crazy 'ol Cap'n Hindsight....


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> Cautions and Conciliatory? Is that what you guys are calling it when you flip flop on every substantive foreign policy issue of the last 2 years and agree with your opponent.
> 
> Romney got his ass handed to him last night. Game. Set. Match.


No, he was describing Romney. And I don't think we'll know how the match comes out till November 6. But then again, my side is not privy to the voter fraud inside info.


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> Bring back the Ironclads, I say! Ironclads!


Do you think our President has any idea that bayonets are standard issue for the Marines? They come in handy in close combat. In fact, his debate demeanor suggested he thought he needed one very badly.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> No, he was describing Romney. And I don't think we'll know how the match comes out till November 6. But then again, *my side is not privy to the voter fraud inside info*.


Yeah - right :smile:

https://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_ne...stration-worker-charged-with-voter-fraud?lite


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Mike Petrik said:


> In fact, his debate demeanor suggested he thought he needed one very badly.


Very true!


----------



## Apatheticviews

Earl of Ormonde said:


> There's nothing to misinterpret, it is just pure arrogance.
> 
> BTW, I've removed the swearword, sorry, I was just so irritated at his attitude.
> Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with a Republican over a Democrat.


We inherited it from our parent nation, who inherited from theirs. The issue is that someone had the audacity to say it.

"indispensable nation" is nothing more than a carry over of "the sun never sets on the British isles" or "all roads lead to Rome."

It's the arrogance of an Empire.. one on the verge of falling.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Mike Petrik said:


> Do you think our President has any idea that bayonets are standard issue for the Marines? They come in handy in close combat. In fact, his debate demeanor suggested he thought he needed one very badly.


As a Marine, I went back and listened to the actual quote. He wasn't factually inaccurate. We did have more bayonets back then. Marines still carry bayonets, but the Navy, Air Force, and most of the Army do not. Intentionally he was wrong, but factually he was correct.

I remember hating that bayonet until the first time I needed it. Much like any other piece of cumbersome gear.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Apatheticviews said:


> I remember hating that bayonet until the first time I needed it. Much like any other piece of cumbersome gear.


Exactly - knife, hammer, spade, scissors, and of course weapon!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Cautions and Conciliatory? Is that what you guys are calling it ....


No, that's what the Washington Post called it.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Donald Trump. What an utterly disgusting excuse for a human being he has proved to be today.....

Also...

Young Republican of the day award goes to....


----------



## Balfour

VictorRomeo said:


> Donald Trump. What an utterly disgusting excuse for a human being he has proved to be today.....


Do you mean the $5 mn to charity pledge? Tawdry and unedifying, but your reaction seems a little strong. Wonder if it would be the same if the shoe was on the donkey's foot and an elephant was the target?



VictorRomeo said:


> Also...
> 
> Young Republican of the day award goes to....










Like.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Balfour said:


> Do you mean the $5 mn to charity pledge? Tawdry and unedifying, but your reaction seems a little strong. Wonder if it would be the same if the shoe was on the donkey's foot and an elephant was the target?


No you don't. ;-)


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> Young Republican of the day award goes to....


Typical shot fired by the Left's war on women. And public school education. Well, at least she's not a heart beat away from the White House.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Balfour said:


> Do you mean the $5 mn to charity pledge? Tawdry and unedifying, but your reaction seems a little strong.


Perhaps. But for the right reasons. Already there are those out there blaming Barak Obama for those poor charities not getting Trump's donation.

But then I'm beginning to think Trump is actually a Democrat in disguise... along with Ann Coulter... to make the Republican right look even more rabidly idiotic than they already do.


----------



## Mike Petrik

*Romney's Clever Tax Plan*

This from my online friend DarwinCatholic (for those of you who are willing to engage in critical thinking rather than emotional invective):

One of the things which the candidates sparred over repeatedly in the debates was Romney's tax plan, on which Obama has repeatedly charged "the math doesn't work".

Romney's plan, as it has been presented, is to reduce tax rates by 20%. Thus, for example, the top rate would go down from the current 35% to 28%. Deductions and credits would then be reduced such that while the middle class would experience a net tax decrease, those at the top would continue to pay the same amount in taxes as they do now. Romney suggested how this might be done in the first debate:

[W]hat are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number, $25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That's one way one could do it.
The idea here would be that for a family making, say 60k/yr that currently takes a total of $15k in deductions, the deductions would remain untouched while their rate would go down, resulting in lower net taxes. For a family making $400k/yr that currently takes $70k in deductions, their deductions would be capped at $25k but their tax rate would be lower, so they would pay about the same as they do now.

Democrats seem to want to suggest that some sort of secret poison pill would be slipped into the plan such that either the middle class would get a tax increase (while the rich would get a tax break) or such that the deficit would go up because fewer tax revenues would be collected. What this tends to miss is that the president does not get to unilaterally pass a tax plan. He has to ask Congress to pass one along the lines of what he would like. I think it's highly unlikely that Congress will pass anything that is a net tax increase on the middle class (or, indeed, anyone) if it's dominated by the GOP, as seems likely, especially if the election has gone well enough for the GOP to put Romney in the White House. That Congress would pass a plan that increases the deficit is more likely (goodness knows they've done it before) but the president himself isn't exactly standing on a good record in that regard either so that argument seems something of a wash.

The thing about this tax plan which is actually interesting, and which isn't being discussed (probably because it takes more than one minute of shouting to convey) is how it's designed to increase the amount of income available to be taxed, and in a way much more clever than the somewhat stale "tax people less and they will make more money" argument. This supply side argument is true, and we've seen examples of it working in history, but although tax cuts do tend to result in pre-tax incomes going up as people seek to increase the income that they make more of, the effect is pretty mild when the existing tax rates aren't absolutely confiscatory. Thus, you might actually see total tax revenues go up cutting the top marginal rate 20% from 80% to 64%, because if 80% of your incremental earnings are being taken away you have little incentive to find ways to increase your earnings. You're better off finding ways to enjoy leisure with the earnings you already have. However, cutting the top rate 20% from 35% to 28%, it's a lot less clear that people would increase their incomes enough more to actually lift total tax revenues.

In a good post over at EconLog the other day, David Henderson digs into the different incentives that wage earners experience when their tax rates are cut:

When the government cuts a marginal tax rate, and that's all it does, that cut has two effects in opposite directions: a substitution effect and an income effect.

The substitution effect is to make leisure more expensive. If you're facing a 35% marginal tax rate (MTR), for example, and the rate is cut by 20% to 28%, your "price" of leisure rises by (72 - 65)/65, or 10.8%. When the price of a normal good rises (and leisure is a normal good), you buy less of it. So people work harder.

The income effect is to make you buy more leisure. The cut in marginal tax rates increases your real income and therefore you demand more leisure. That is, you work less.

Empirically, the substitution effect tends to outweigh the income effect slightly for men and strongly for married women. This means that cuts in MTRs alone will tend to increase income somewhat for men and a fair amount for married women. That was the effect of Reagan's cuts in MTRs in the early 1980s.
Now, I'm certainly not one to say that the government has a need to maximize the amount of total tax revenues it takes in. Maximizing the size of government is not an end unto itself, and it can actually cause all sorts of problems. So in the abstract, one might argue that if lowering marginal tax rates were to cause incomes to go up, we should simply do that and find a way for the government to get by with a little less. However, the fact is, right now the government is spending far, far more than it takes in. Even the most aggressive responsible budget cutters (emphasis on responsible here - there are some silly plans out there that claim they can cut spending by huge percentages right off) need tax revenues to remain fairly stable in order to get the budget balanced.

Well, it turns out that by cutting marginal tax rates but also cutting deductions so that the who balance out, you can have the substitution effect that Henderson describes without having the income effect. The rate cuts and deduction cuts are perfectly balanced, so your income is exactly the same as it was before. You don't "feel richer", and so you don't have the incentive to rest on your laurels and enjoy your newfound wealth. However, the substitution effect does come into play. If you have the opportunity to make more, less of that incremental income will be taken away in the form of taxes, and you'll get to keep more of it. The reward for making more is higher, and so (all other things being equal) people will tend to do it more.

And, of course, if this does result in incremental total income for citizens, that incremental income will be taxed (at the new lower rates) and result in incremental tax revenue which can be used to close the deficit. Thus, a tax reform that was essentially revenue neutral (people pay the same taxes each year) but which decreased marginal tax rates and deductions would have the same stimulative effect on incomes that a tax cut would have, but wouldn't present the deficit risk of significantly decreasing tax revenues and counting on economic growth to make up for that gap.

The plan really is quite clever, which makes it a shame that no one is willing to talk about it except in tiresome sound bites.


----------



## Balfour

VictorRomeo said:


> Perhaps. But for the right reasons. Already there are those out there blaming Barak Obama for those poor charities not getting Trump's donation.
> 
> But then I'm beginning to think Trump is actually a Democrat in disguise... along with Ann Coulter... to make the Republican right look even more rabidly idiotic than they already do.


Exactly. If I were Romney, I would not find this at all helpful - especially when he's starting to make some serious headway in the polls and on the issues. But it's such a transparent political gimmick that I thought 'utterly disgusting human being' was probably better reserved for people like the subject of another thread you started recently.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Mike Petrik said:


> Typical shot fired by the Left's war on women. And public school education. Well, at least she's not a heart beat away from the White House.


Typical shot fired by the Right's war on satire not withstanding the obvious (tu qouque), and the image staring you in the face! But then that same public school education very nearly work out for beauty queen Sarah Palin, so there may be hope in store for our toothy-grinned friend yet.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Balfour said:


> Exactly. If I were Romney, I would not find this at all helpful - especially when he's starting to make some serious headway in the polls and on the issues. But it's such a transparent political gimmick that I thought 'utterly disgusting human being' was probably better reserved for people like the subject of another thread you started recently.


While it's fair to say that Trump and the person on the post quoted cannot be compared directly, I believe that for a man of Trump's wealth and means to dangle what he would probably deem 'chump change' in the face of the poor and needy - not withstanding the political gimmickry - a disgusting act. He is not a good man in my estimation. But then it's all a matter of degrees.

By way of disclosure, have a look at my profile and it might explain(only a little) why I feel so strongly about this sort of thing and why it offends me so much.


----------



## Balfour

VictorRomeo said:


> While it's fair to say that Trump and the person on the post quoted cannot be compared directly, I believe that for a man of Trump's wealth and means to dangle what he would probably deem 'chump change' in the face of the poor and needy - not withstanding the political gimmickry - a disgusting act. He is not a good man in my estimation. But then it's all a matter of degrees.
> 
> By way of disclosure, have a look at my profile and it might explain(only a little) why I feel so strongly about this sort of thing and why it offends me so much.


Thanks - I hadn't realised you were approaching it more from the perspective of the charities than the Obama camp. Again, though, I would have thought they (the charities) are grown up enough to see it for what it is, and not bank on getting any $$$ soon.

I trust you will not be starting a reality television show any time soon ...:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## VictorRomeo

Balfour said:


> Thanks - I hadn't realised you were approaching it more from the perspective of the charities than the Obama camp. Again, though, I would have thought they (the charities) are grown up enough to see it for what it is, and not bank on getting any $$$ soon.
> 
> I trust you will not be starting a reality television show any time soon ...:icon_smile_wink:


They..., we are. Charity is not a socialist endeavor - it is incompatible with socialism in fact. Charity cannot exist without capitalism, without wealth and disposable income. I'm sure you know I'm stating the obvious, but it's amazing at the amount of people who never make that specific connection. With that staid, charity should be extended to those who need it unconditionally. Hence my finding Trump reprehensible.

And no, I never made that kind of money and I despise the limelight.


----------



## Balfour

VictorRomeo said:


> Charity is not a socialist endeavor - it is incompatible with socialism in fact. Charity cannot exist without capitalism, without wealth and disposable income. I'm sure you know I'm stating the obvious, but it's amazing at the amount of people who never make that specific connection.


Not sure who suggested it was (but haven't been following all of the thread).

But I quite agree - charity is the voluntary surrender of wealth for benevolent purposes, exemplified by some of the great American capitalists (I always like the Andrew Carnegie quote: "The kept dollar is a stinking fish."). It is to be applauded.

Socialism is taking a X, Y and Z voting that A should be required to surrender his wealth for purposes determined by the Government.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Balfour said:


> Not sure who suggested it was (but haven't been following all of the thread).


Nobody, bar little old me, meandering in conversation......! All good!


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> Typical shot fired by the Right's war on satire not withstanding the obvious (tu qouque), and the image staring you in the face! But then that same public school education very nearly work out for beauty queen Sarah Palin, so there may be hope in store for our toothy-grinned friend yet.


 Sarah Palin was a _beauty queen_?! :icon_pale:


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> Sarah Palin was a _beauty queen_?! :icon_pale:


Yep. True. Though she was the only one who didn't want world peace.


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> Yep. True. Though she was the only one who didn't want world peace.


_b-dum_ TISH! :biggrin:

We have some useless politicians in England, not as many as once we had being as they all take blandness lessons now, but Palin takes some beating for superfluousness.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Mike Petrik said:


> The plan really is quite clever, which makes it a shame that no one is willing to talk about it except in tiresome sound bites.


It simply doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

"Tax the rich" does!!


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> Yep. True. Though she was the only one who didn't want world peace.


That is indeed funny, but cuts both ways. 

Palin is a reasonably intelligent person who suffers from a life experience that is too narrow for the national stage. In contrast, Biden is an extraordinarily experienced person who suffers from a brain capacity that is too limited for national office. Eventually, Palin will have a broadened experience. Biden will still be an idiot.


----------



## Haffman

VictorRomeo said:


> Charity is not a socialist endeavor - it is incompatible with socialism in fact. Charity cannot exist without capitalism, without wealth and disposable income. I'm sure you know I'm stating the obvious, but it's amazing at the amount of people who never make that specific connection.


So before capitalism, there was no charity ? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Balfour

Haffman said:


> So before capitalism, there was no charity ? :icon_scratch:


That's a little unfair. I think VictorRomeo's comment should be interpreted in modern day circumstances. (Before we had capitalism in this country we of course had an agrarian monarchy / oligarchy, so the capitalism versus socialism dichotomy did not exist.)


----------



## Mike Petrik

Haffman said:


> So before capitalism, there was no charity ? :icon_scratch:


I agree with this rhetorical question. I suspect what VR really means is that charity is dependent on private property rights, which is true. While capitalism is also dependent on such rights, it does not follow that charity is dependent on capitalism.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> This from my online friend DarwinCatholic


Yeah, lets take some clown named "Darwin Catholic's word that the Romney plan will work - over a verifiable source like the Tax Policy Center. Good call as well Mike, by trying to wrap this BS in the cloak of "for those of you who are willing to engage in critical thinking"...LOL

Plain and simple, Romney's plan in NOT mathematically possible....there simply are not enough tax breaks for the rich which Romney can pull back on, to pay for the massive cuts he is promising.

He has to either make the tax cuts smaller, raise taxes on the middle class, or add to the deficit. Anything other than that is Straight Voodoo Economics. But then you guys coined the phrase, so I am sure you know all about it.


----------



## Haffman

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree with this rhetorical question. I suspect what VR really means is that charity is dependent on private property rights, which is true. While capitalism is also dependent on such rights, it does not follow that charity is dependent on capitalism.


The most recent 'world giving index' (2011) ranks the top ten charitable nations as follows : 
(1) USA
(2) Ireland 
(3) Australia 
(4) New Zealand 
(5) UK
(6) Netherlands
(7) Canada
(8) Sri Lanka 
(9) Thailand 
(10) People's Democratic Republic of Laos

Is the argument that what unifies these nations is that they are the most capitalist and have the most defined property rights?


----------



## Haffman

This is the 2012 index of economic freedom (list of 'most capitalist' countries)


Hong Kong89.90.2 2Singapore87.50.33Australia83.10.64New Zealand82.1-0.25Switzerland81.1-0.86Canada79.9-0.97Chile78.30.98Mauritius77.00.89Ireland76.9-1.810United States76.3-1.5


----------



## Haffman

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree with this rhetorical question. I suspect what VR really means is that charity is dependent on private property rights, which is true. While capitalism is also dependent on such rights, it does not follow that charity is dependent on capitalism.


I could just rephrase the question then to...so before private property rights, there was no charity?


----------



## Balfour

Mike put this better than me in relating charity to private property rights rather than capitalism per se.

Private property rights have been legally enforced in this country for a very, very long time.

Prior to private property rights, possession was a 100% of the law. But things were still 'yours' until you gave them away (charity) or had them taken from you.

The league table comparisons are a bit pedantic. Of course in the real world there are lots of shades of grey - no country is purely capitalist and few if any countries are purely socialist. But the basic premiss that charity depends on the existence of private property rights holds good as a theory. In the socialist idyll of a centrally planned economy, where resources are allocated in accordance with need, there is simply much less capacity for charity.


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> Yeah, lets take some clown named "Darwin Catholic's word that the Romney plan will work - over a verifiable source like the Tax Policy Center. Good call as well Mike, by trying to wrap this BS in the cloak of "for those of you who are willing to engage in critical thinking"...LOL
> 
> Plain and simple, Romney's plan in NOT mathematically possible....there simply are not enough tax breaks for the rich which Romney can pull back on, to pay for the massive cuts he is promising.
> 
> He has to either make the tax cuts smaller, raise taxes on the middle class, or add to the deficit. Anything other than that is Straight Voodoo Economics. But then you guys coined the phrase, so I am sure you know all about it.


DC is not a clown, and his reasoning speaks for itself. As does your string of words.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Haffman said:


> I could just rephrase the question then to...so before private property rights, there was no charity?


I think that is somewhat right, but not completely. Certainly one could still be charitable with things other than property, such as time. But one cannot give away property that one does not own.


----------



## Haffman

Balfour said:


> Mike put this better than me in relating charity to private property rights rather than capitalism per se.
> 
> Private property rights have been legally enforced in this country for a very, very long time.
> 
> Prior to private property rights, possession was a 100% of the law. But things were still 'yours' until you gave them away (charity) or had them taken from you.
> 
> The league table comparisons are a bit pedantic. Of course in the real world there are lots of shades of grey - no country is purely capitalist and few if any countries are purely socialist. But the basic premiss that charity depends on the existence of private property rights holds good as a theory. In the socialist idyll of a centrally planned economy, where resources are allocated in accordance with need, there is simply much less capacity for charity.


I don't think that charity depends on the existence of private property rights. I also find the statement "Charity cannot exist without capitalism" to be unpleasingly sweeping and have a dislike of orthodoxy when it comes to economics. Capitalist countries have certainly proved themselves to be more effective at producing a surfeit of goods and available labour, which has surely contributed to the great proportion of capitalist countries among the most charitable. But I find it rather pompous to say that such an innate human quality as charity is tied up in capitalism or private property rights.

I wasn't attempting to be pedantic with the league tables (they, after all, do not refute the proposal since there is a significant correlation between the two). Just trying to find some sort of evidence base for the assertion. I don't find the evidence compelling enough myself.


----------



## eagle2250

Shaver said:


> Sarah Palin was a _beauty queen_?! :icon_pale:


LOL....that old "lipstick on a Pit bull" thing really does improve the visual effect(s)!


----------



## Haffman

Mike Petrik said:


> I think that is somewhat right, but not completely. Certainly one could still be charitable with things other than property, such as time. But one cannot give away property that one does not own.


I don't dispute that private property rights have been hugely important to capitalism and that capitalism has been hugely important to prosperity and that prosperity is a factor in charity.

However, since I am (sort of) discussing politics it means the hour is growing late, it will be religion next and then I'll be in trouble, so I'd better take my leave and wish you all a good night.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Haffman said:


> The most recent 'world giving index' (2011) ranks the top ten charitable nations as follows :
> (1) USA
> (2) Ireland
> (3) Australia
> (4) New Zealand
> (5) UK
> (6) Netherlands
> (7) Canada
> (8) Sri Lanka
> (9) Thailand
> (10) People's Democratic Republic of Laos
> 
> Is the argument that what unifies these nations is that they are the most capitalist and have the most defined property rights?


I'm not sure. Social scientist guru Arthur Brooks' famous study (embodied in his book, Who Really Cares?") revealed that the most predictive variable in the US for charitable giving is religiosity. Regular church attenders give substantially more money (and time) than others, even not counting church tithing. The second most predictive variable was self-identified ideology. Those who identify as conservatives give more than others, with self-identified liberals giving the least. Americans who agreed with the statement that it is the job of government to provide for those in need were significantly less charitable than those who disagreed with the statement. Those who responded "disagree strongly" gave away the most, while those who agreed strongly gave away the least. These patterns were true in other areas of giving as well, such as blood donations. Of course, Brooks took into account income, wealth, age, geography, etc.

I'm not sure whether Brooks' conclusions translate outside the US or how they would interplay with concepts of private property or capitalism, though one can speculate on the connections easily enough.

Finally, Brooks's conclusions were statistical and general. There are plently of selfish religious conservatives and generous secular liberals.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Haffman said:


> I don't think that charity depends on the existence of private property rights. I also find the statement "Charity cannot exist without capitalism" to be unpleasingly sweeping and have a dislike of orthodoxy when it comes to economics. Capitalist countries have certainly proved themselves to be more effective at producing a surfeit of goods and available labour, which has surely contributed to the great proportion of capitalist countries among the most charitable. But I find it rather pompous to say that such an innate human quality as charity is tied up in capitalism or private property rights.
> 
> I wasn't attempting to be pedantic with the league tables (they, after all, do not refute the proposal since there is a significant correlation between the two). Just trying to find some sort of evidence base for the assertion. I don't find the evidence compelling enough myself.


I don't really disagree with that. Basically, though, charity presupposes some concept of property, even if it is simply grounded in possession and might.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> DC is not a clown, and his reasoning speaks for itself. As does your string of words.


Yeah, his reasoning is based on the same old tried and true trickle down BS. Clearly, repeatedly cutting the taxes on the "job creators" has NOT created jobs. More right wing drivel.

Since 1961, there have been five Republican presidents and five Democratic presidents - serving, as Clinton said, a cumulative 28 years and 24 years, respectively. Here's a breakdown of the net job creation under each one, according to data available on the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Republicans:
Richard Nixon: + 7.1 million
Gerald Ford: +1.3 million
Ronald Reagan: + 14.7 million
George H. W. Bush: + 1.5 million
George W. Bush: -646,000
*Total jobs added: +23.9 million
*
_Democrats_
_John F. Kennedy: +2.7 million_
_Lyndon B. Johnson: +9.5 million_
_Jimmy Carter: +9 million_
_Bill Clinton: +20.6 million
__Barack Obama: +332,000_
*Total jobs added: +42.1 million

*
​So much for Republicans having their finger on the pulse of what creates jobs. :biggrin2:


----------



## VictorRomeo

VictorRomeo said:


> Charity cannot exist without capitalism, without wealth and disposable income.


I stand over this statement, but it's meant in a broad, contemporaneous context. Simplisticly, capitalism begets profit and generates wealth - at varying levels of the scale of course. Wealth leads to disposable income and with that the circle is complete. Giving your money away is the ultimate expression of disposable income (a subset of that notion is giving an unused item away that you've replaced or don't need anymore). Whether it's to your church (tithe or otherwise), the local animal shelter or for overseas aid and development - it's still charity and it's been around since we've all tried to make an extra buck or two. As someone pointed out, you can't give it away if you don't have it to begin with. But let's be clear, charity and the whole notion of 'giving' let alone that of 'benefiting' is deeply complex - in thoery as well as practice.


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> Yeah, his reasoning is based on the same old tried and true trickle down BS. Clearly, repeatedly cutting the taxes on the "job creators" has NOT created jobs. More right wing drivel.
> 
> . [/COLOR]:biggrin2:


Personally, I don't think you are capable of understanding DC's explanation. That's OK. It means you are qualified to be Vice President.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> Personally, I don't think you are capable of understanding DC's explanation. That's OK. It means you are qualified to be Vice President.


Yeah Mike, no one is as smart as you. And facts are known to have a liberal bias.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Mike Petrik said:


> I think that is somewhat right, but not completely. Certainly one could still be charitable with things other than property, such as time. But one cannot give away property that one does not own.


I would argue that if you 'donate' time to charity, that is time you don't need to sustain your own livelihood whatever that might require. That you have already achieved a level of security(financial or otherwise) that allows you 'spend' your time elsewhere. However, call up most any charity and announce that you've a bunch of time to donate and get ready for a surprise!


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> Yeah Mike, no one is as smart as you. And facts are known to have a liberal bias.


Plenty of people are as smart as me. And even more are as smart as you!


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> I would argue that if you 'donate' time to charity, that is time you don't need to sustain your own livelihood whatever that might require. That you have already achieved a level of security(financial or otherwise) that allows you 'spend' your time elsewhere. However, call up most any charity and announce that you've a bunch of time to donate and get ready for a surprise!


I agree that people do not donate the time they need to earn necessities. I also agree that that capitalism enables charity precisely because it enables affluance, although this is not to say that charity would be non-existent in non-market economies. I'm not sure about your last point, but it is certainly true that charities have a more limited appetite for time than money, mostly because money can translate into purchasing the skills and resources they offer rather than the skills the donor happens to have. That said, in the US many millions of hours of time are faithfully donated to charities every year.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Two smarties then?


----------



## VictorRomeo

Mike Petrik said:


> That said, in the US many millions of hours of time are faithfully donated to charities every year.


Predominantly to fundraise...... not exclusivly, but predominantly.....


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> Plenty of people are as smart as me. And even more are as smart as you!


Thanks for the compliment Mike. Knowing I get under you skin makes my day.


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> Predominantly to fundraise...... not exclusivly, but predominantly.....


While I do not have the data, I don't really think that is true. I currently serve on the following boards: Salvation Army; St. Pius Catholic H.S.; Vasser Woolley Foundation; United Way; and Brother Rice High School. In the past I served on the boards of Duke Law School, Delta Sigma Phi Foundation, Leadership Atlanta, and Big Brothers/Big Sisters. There are others, but I think these are the big ones. The vast majority of volunteer hours for each of these organizations has nothing to do with fundraising, with the exception of the United Way due to the volunteer intensive workplace campaign. I also chaired my law firm's pro bono committee for many years and have a pretty good handle on the non-profit sector. Most volunteer hours are not fundraising related.


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> Thanks for the compliment Mike. Knowing I get under you skin makes my day.


How sad for you, but if it makes you happy you have my blessing to continue to believe this.


----------



## Apatheticviews

mrkleen said:


> Yeah, his reasoning is based on the same old tried and true trickle down BS. Clearly, repeatedly cutting the taxes on the "job creators" has NOT created jobs. More right wing drivel.
> 
> Since 1961, there have been five Republican presidents and five Democratic presidents - serving, as Clinton said, a cumulative 28 years and 24 years, respectively. Here's a breakdown of the net job creation under each one, according to data available on the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
> 
> Republicans:
> Richard Nixon: + 7.1 million
> Gerald Ford: +1.3 million
> Ronald Reagan: + 14.7 million
> George H. W. Bush: + 1.5 million
> George W. Bush: -646,000
> *Total jobs added: +23.9 million
> *
> _Democrats_
> _John F. Kennedy: +2.7 million_
> _Lyndon B. Johnson: +9.5 million_
> _Jimmy Carter: +9 million_
> _Bill Clinton: +20.6 million
> __Barack Obama: +332,000_
> *Total jobs added: +42.1 million
> 
> *
> ​So much for Republicans having their finger on the pulse of what creates jobs. :biggrin2:


I don't see Mr. Obama having much of a pulse either compared to the others. As a matter of fact, he would be directly comparable to Bush.

But let's be real here. If you really believe 1 man (the president) affects 400 million people (the country), you need to rethink your philosophy. It's not just him. It's a combination of him, congress, the country, and natural cyclic events.


----------



## mrkleen

Apatheticviews said:


> I don't see Mr. Obama having much of a pulse either compared to the others. As a matter of fact, he would be directly comparable to Bush.
> 
> But let's be real here. If you really believe 1 man (the president) affects 400 million people (the country), you need to rethink your philosophy. It's not just him. It's a combination of him, congress, the country, and natural cyclic events.


You guys like to have it both ways right.

Obama is ruining the country - and we need him out to save the country. Yet in the same breath, when you are shown facts that state that an inclusive economy that is built from the middle outward works better than your failed trickle down BS - and that Bill Clinton ate your savior Ronald Reagan's lunch - you claim the president doesnt matter much.

What a joke.


----------



## Jovan

I want to live in this fantasy world where the big corporations always look out for the health and well-being of everyone without any regulations whatsoever.


----------



## drlivingston

Creating jobs is simple... sustaining them is another matter.


----------



## drlivingston

Photographic editorial of outsourcing. :biggrin:








Note the tag!


----------



## Jovan

You're right. They should have printed it on an American Apparel tie.


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> You guys like to have it both ways right.
> 
> Obama is ruining the country - and we need him out to save the country. Yet in the same breath, when you are shown facts that state that an inclusive economy that is built from the middle outward works better than your failed trickle down BS - and that Bill Clinton ate your savior Ronald Reagan's lunch - you claim the president doesnt matter much.
> 
> What a joke.


I agree that you have touched on the real issue. The Clinton presidency was a shambles until the "Contract with America", when the sweeping victory of Republicans gave them the House for the first time in something like 60 years. A lot of jobs were created after that happened. Bush 2s presidency coincided with the biggest tax revenues in American history (stimulated perhaps by "The Bush Tax Cuts" which Obama has maintained even as he has derided them), but that lasted only till the first year of the Pelosi/Reid congress. Revenues continue to shrink since they won a majority, even as spending continues to escalate. So who has the powers of the purse in the US government? Who passes legislation? Why assume that the president can solve these things when they are the domain of the legislative branch? Many of the jobs created under Reagan were added when the House was controlled by the Democrats, and 50 per cent of the jobs you attribute to democrats were created when, under Clinton, the Republicans controlled the laws and the taxes (and with Clinton passed a host of work-related reforms that Obama/Pelosi/Reid has repealed).

And how can any of this be solved when the right is on the warpath against inefficient spending everywhere except in the defense budget (even someone as right-leaning as Grover Norquist addresses the absurdity in that) and the left simply engages in demagoguery over taxation.


----------



## Jovan

^ Very reasonable points brought up, sir.


----------



## Shaver

I trust that I am not alone in considering the 'banter' regarding cerebral capability deeply troubling. Some chaps may be more attuned to abstract thought than others, some chaps may be superior in physical challenges and so on and so forth. There is certainly no need to denigrate a fellow based on his perceived ability, or lack of. 

At any rate if one's political position cannot be expressed in such a manner that it's audience is able to comprehend it then that is really not so smart, is it?


----------



## Shaver

Jovan said:


> I want to live in this fantasy world where the big corporations always look out for the health and well-being of everyone without any regulations whatsoever.


You mean to say that we don't live in this world already? :icon_smile_wink:

Baxter Laboratories seem like such a wholesome company _according to their website_. :devil:


----------



## VictorRomeo

Mike Petrik said:


> While I do not have the data, I don't really think that is true. I currently serve on the following boards: Salvation Army; St. Pius Catholic H.S.; Vasser Woolley Foundation; United Way; and Brother Rice High School. In the past I served on the boards of Duke Law School, Delta Sigma Phi Foundation, Leadership Atlanta, and Big Brothers/Big Sisters. There are others, but I think these are the big ones. The vast majority of volunteer hours for each of these organizations has nothing to do with fundraising, with the exception of the United Way due to the volunteer intensive workplace campaign. I also chaired my law firm's pro bono committee for many years and have a pretty good handle on the non-profit sector. Most volunteer hours are not fundraising related.


Well I didn't say it was exclusive. You are involved with some very reputible organisations for sure - perhaps it's a little different when it comes to community/parish based giving. My involvment with charities are limited to those with an overseas aid and development focus (humanitarian, environmental and micro-finance). I'm also using my realm of experience to shape my opinions - which is based very much on a European context as well as strong understanding of the operational activities of a global NGO (I'm 'C level' with one of the world's largest). With that said, I travel to the US a number of times a year and spend time with my counterparts of the global US based NGOs. When it comes to the operational aspects of these organisation, there's little or no voluteerism involved. So it's restricted to fundraising, advocacy at a community or scools level and perhaps very basic assistance in Donor communications.


----------



## Apatheticviews

mrkleen said:


> You guys like to have it both ways right.
> 
> Obama is ruining the country - and we need him out to save the country. Yet in the same breath, when you are shown facts that state that an inclusive economy that is built from the middle outward works better than your failed trickle down BS - and that Bill Clinton ate your savior Ronald Reagan's lunch - you claim the president doesnt matter much.
> 
> What a joke.


What do you mean you guys?

I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I voted for Obama last election, and Bush the time before that.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson this time, because I don't like Romney's stance on personal Rights issues, and I don't care for Obamas track record on 4th Amendment (TSA), 2nd Amendment, and his unwillingness to take a stand on DOMA (a Civil Right's issue). Not to mention his assassination of an American citizen without due process. I may be throwing my vote away, but at least I'm leaning towards a candidate who has a proven track record of using a veto to get things done.


----------



## mrkleen

Apatheticviews said:


> What do you mean you guys?
> 
> I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I voted for Obama last election, and Bush the time before that.


Fair play. My apologies.


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> Well I didn't say it was exclusive. You are involved with some very reputible organisations for sure - perhaps it's a little different when it comes to community/parish based giving. My involvment with charities are limited to those with an overseas aid and development focus (humanitarian, environmental and micro-finance). I'm also using my realm of experience to shape my opinions - which is based very much on a European context as well as strong understanding of the operational activities of a global NGO (I'm 'C level' with one of the world's largest). With that said, I travel to the US a number of times a year and spend time with my counterparts of the global US based NGOs. When it comes to the operational aspects of these organisation, there's little or no voluteerism involved. So it's restricted to fundraising, advocacy at a community or scools level and perhaps very basic assistance in Donor communications.


Sure, just different experiences and quite possibly different realities in Europe versus the US. If your travels to the US ever bring you to Atlanta I'm happy to buy you a pint (or several).


----------



## Apatheticviews

mrkleen said:


> Fair play. My apologies.


Apology accepted.

I was just pointing out that it's not a R vs D issue. It's not one guy in a vacuum. If the top guy is a Dem, and the Congress is Rep, then you can have a power play where they are working at complete odds. You can also have situations where they do work together, and do great things, and that doesn't make it just his accomplishment.

The economy, and jobs is such a monster that 4 years is just not enough time to see a sizable change. We're still seeing effects from the fall of the USSR. Much like we'll be seeing the effects of the baby boomers in a couple years.


----------



## mrkleen

Apatheticviews said:


> Apology accepted.
> 
> I was just pointing out that it's not a R vs D issue. It's not one guy in a vacuum. If the top guy is a Dem, and the Congress is Rep, then you can have a power play where they are working at complete odds. You can also have situations where they do work together, and do great things, and that doesn't make it just his accomplishment.
> 
> The economy, and jobs is such a monster that 4 years is just not enough time to see a sizable change. We're still seeing effects from the fall of the USSR. Much like we'll be seeing the effects of the baby boomers in a couple years.


Totally agree. Not to mention, the entire stated platform of those in the republican party in congress - from DAY ONE was to make the President a one term President. Talk about putting party before the American people.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Mike Petrik said:


> Sure, just different experiences and quite possibly different realities in Europe versus the US. If your travels to the US ever bring you to Atlanta I'm happy to buy you a pint (or several).


I'm in the US about 5 times a year - We have offices in NY and Chicago, Washington for USAID meetings, Seattle for Microsoft and Gates Foundation stuff and Stanford/Palo Alto and the rest of the valley in general. Never Atlanta unfortunatly. You might be interested to learn that I've met your CEO - Brian Gallagher - at United Way a couple of times...


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> I'm in the US about 5 times a year - We have offices in NY and Chicago, Washington for USAID meetings, Seattle for Microsoft and Gates Foundation stuff and Stanford/Palo Alto and the rest of the valley in general. Never Atlanta unfortunatly. You might be interested to learn that I've met your CEO - Brian Gallagher - at United Way a couple of times...


I know Brian somewhat. He's from Atlanta and grew up at the United Way of Greater Atlanta, and I was on the board even back then. He is a talented gent and no doubt is doing a good job leading United Way Worldwide.


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> Totally agree. Not to mention, the entire stated platform of those in the republican party in congress - from DAY ONE was to make the President a one term President. Talk about putting party before the American people.


That is a long standing tradition. Don't you remember when George Mitchell and Tom Foley stood in the well of the House and basically said, "We don't care who the American people just elected. We're not passing his legislation". Obama had House and Senate majorities, and acted accordingly. IIRC, B1 had majorities in neither and had to compromise. Of course, the compromise probably cost him his job.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Totally agree. Not to mention, the entire stated platform of those in the republican party in congress - from DAY ONE was to make the President a one term President. Talk about putting party before the American people.


You would think Obama could have gotton one, ONE Democrat vote for his budget in three + years then instead of unveiling some lame-ass "plan" two weeks before election day, wouldn't you??


----------



## Jovan

You keep on addressing both me and mrkleen as if we're blind Obama supporters.


----------



## mrkleen

P Hudson said:


> That is a long standing tradition. Don't you remember when George Mitchell and Tom Foley stood in the well of the House and basically said, "We don't care who the American people just elected. We're not passing his legislation". Obama had House and Senate majorities, and acted accordingly. IIRC, B1 had majorities in neither and had to compromise. Of course, the compromise probably cost him his job.


Listen, you can lie to yourself if you want and say that - this simply reflects divided government. But while there are many instances of divided government - the 104th Congress, for instance, when Newt Gingrich and his Republican revolutionaries faced off against President Bill Clinton and still managed to pass 333 public laws. The 112th passed 173 laws -* there's no session of Congress IN HISTORY with such a poor record of productivity.*


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> You would think Obama could have gotton one, ONE Democrat vote for his budget in three + years then instead of unveiling some lame-ass "plan" two weeks before election day, wouldn't you??


Voting on a budget, one that has no chance of passing is nothing but political theater - which was described well by Politifact

*Our ruling*

In his speech, Romney faulted Obama for failing to pass a budget. He was correct that the two times Congress voted on the president's budget requests, both times they were voted down. But *the job of passing a budget resolution is not the president's.* That responsibility falls to Congress, and even then the president doesn't sign it. As Ellis, our expert, put it: *"The president has no role in passing a budget. The president can cajole Congress about passing a budget and advocate for positions and funding levels, but in the end, Congress approves the budget resolution for their own purposes."* That's the difference between this and other claims we've rated which blamed Congress for inaction on the budget.

Romney's statement contains a grain of truth, in that two of Obama's budget requests failed to pass. But citing those votes leaves a wrong impression -- namely that the votes were anything more than political theater. Romney omitted the more critical information that passing a federal budget is the job of Congress. *Given all that, we rate his statement Mostly False.*


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> Voting on a budget, one that has no chance of passing is nothing but political theater - which was described well by Politifact
> 
> *Our ruling*
> 
> In his speech, Romney faulted Obama for failing to pass a budget. He was correct that the two times Congress voted on the president's budget requests, both times they were voted down. But *the job of passing a budget resolution is not the president's.* That responsibility falls to Congress, and even then the president doesn't sign it. As Ellis, our expert, put it: *"The president has no role in passing a budget. The president can cajole Congress about passing a budget and advocate for positions and funding levels, but in the end, Congress approves the budget resolution for their own purposes."* That's the difference between this and other claims we've rated which blamed Congress for inaction on the budget.
> 
> Romney's statement contains a grain of truth, in that two of Obama's budget requests failed to pass. But citing those votes leaves a wrong impression -- namely that the votes were anything more than political theater. Romney omitted the more critical information that passing a federal budget is the job of Congress. *Given all that, we rate his statement Mostly False.*


I don't think the president can "pass" anything, so at some level this seems to have become a semantic game. On the other hand, he can 1) propose a budget that someone, anyone, might vote for (he didn't do that) or 2) attempt to enforce the law that requires congress to pass an annual budget (he didn't do that either).

I would assert that legally and in keeping with the _Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974_, the PRESIDENT submits a budget proposal on or before the first Monday in Feb, for the approval of congress. Isn't that what Obama did (three years running)? Nevertheless, each time, the Senate--dominated by his own party--voted unanimously against it. I put the statement "Obama didn't pass a budget" on a par with "Obama didn't close Gitmo". Nobody ever took that to mean that he would make a trip over there to turn off the lights. "Obama killed Osama". Not really: he wasn't even in Pakistan when it happened. "Obama got our troops out or Iraq". Not a one of them: they all relied on someone else to get home.

Just playing the game.


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> Listen, you can lie to yourself if you want and say that - this simply reflects divided government. But while there are many instances of divided government - the 104th Congress, for instance, when Newt Gingrich and his Republican revolutionaries faced off against President Bill Clinton and still managed to pass 333 public laws. The 112th passed 173 laws -* there's no session of Congress IN HISTORY with such a poor record of productivity.*


I assume for consistency you've removed the president from the equation with respect to passing things. So what you mean is that the divided congress isn't passing anything. How does that make your point? Do you know how many bills have passed in the House, only to die in the Senate? Clinton's House pressed for balanced budgets and he vetoed them 6 times. They kept passing them anyway. That is what you can do when you control the House. And the Republicans controlled the Senate then. So this says nothing about the situation when one party controls the House and the other controls the Senate.

You can consult Keith Poole's DW-Nominate system for a statistical analysis of the partisanship of congress. This is indeed an era of hyperpartisanship in Washington. If only a candidate would run on the promise of being post-partisan, of being able to heal the divisions in Washington.

And you don't need to degrade yourself with the "lie to yourself" stuff. You don't know me or even my political affiliation.


----------



## Fashion Frank

WouldaShoulda said:


> Aren't facts, clarity and political deftness more effective without being demented and rude??


Regardless of who was "right or wrong" in the debate on talking points, Biden was flat out rude and all over the place with the arm waving ,interrupting etc.etc.etc.

The President did the same thing with the " aircarft carriers are things planes land on" being very condescending and talking down to Romney.

Am I mistaken or was there suppose to be no discourse on politick's on this Forum?

All the Best , Fashion Frank


----------



## P Hudson

Fashion Frank said:


> Regardless of who was "right or wrong" in the debate on talking points, Biden was flat out rude and all over the place with the arm waving ,interrupting etc.etc.etc.
> 
> The President did the same thing with the " aircarft carriers are things planes land on" being very condescending and talking down to Romney.
> 
> Am I mistaken or was there suppose to be no discourse on politick's on this Forum?
> 
> All the Best , Fashion Frank


While I agree, I still think that Biden did very well in that debate, and that Obama beat Romney in the 3rd. Obama didn't go overboard, he just had a momentary snag. And he raised an issue that has merit: I don't know why it wasn't developed. Probably because both parties are happy to spend billions and billions on military waste.


----------



## L-feld

Jovan said:


> I was disappointed that neither candidate discussed tax _reform_, in all honesty. That's the real issue, not tax increases or decreases.


100% correct. Things that need to go away:

1. Deductions for mortgage interest. This bias in favor of homeowners has existed for far too long. If the past few years have taught us anything, it's that the government has no business incentivizing mortgages and, if it's going to, FHA mortgage insurance is more than enough. This deduction is also a boon to real estate investors and real estate developers, much like the old short term real estate amortization term was. Those are two professions that will do just fine without any extra perks.

2. Pre-tax health insurance premiums. This is primarily a boon to employers who would provide insurance regardless. There are very few employers who actually have tipped over in favor of providing insurance due to the this nice little exclusion. With the money saved, we could fund a proper single payer plan.

3. Unqualified 501(c)(3) status for religious organizations. They should be subject to the same transparency and scrutiny as any other nonprofit. Too much private inurement occurs without notice.

4. Deductions for donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. Once again, this gives an unfair advantage to those who itemize their deductions, who more often than not are wealthy individuals or corporations (or individuals paying a mortgage, but that's a different story). Will big ticket 501(c)(3)'s be able to reap the same huge tax shelter donations from large corporations? No, but then again the Susan G. Komen Foundation isn't really doing much good with that money. Small, localized nonprofts would be largely unaffected as their donations come from less wealthy individuals who aren't itemizing anyway.

5. The AMT. Nobody understands it and it's keyed to wildly outdated income brackets. It is also, arguably, not necessary anymore because stay at home mothers are so rare now. I can appreciate the intent behind it back in the 60's when married men with non-working spouses would shelter their income by filing joint returns, but that isn't the reality anymore.


----------



## mrkleen

P Hudson said:


> And you don't need to degrade yourself with the "lie to yourself" stuff. You don't know me or even my political affiliation.


My lie to yourself quote was in reply to this line from your first post



P Hudson said:


> That is a long standing tradition.


Claiming that there is a long standing tradition of obstruction is true - claiming that tradition has ever even come close to the 112th Congress is simply untrue.


----------



## P Hudson

L-feld said:


> 100% correct. Things that need to go away:
> 
> 5. The AMT. Nobody understands it and it's keyed to wildly outdated income brackets. It is also, arguably, not necessary anymore because stay at home mothers are so rare now. I can appreciate the intent behind it back in the 60's when married men with non-working spouses would shelter their income by filing joint returns, but that isn't the reality anymore.


Can you say more about this. Last figures I've seen are that 58 per cent of women are in the work force, and that 27 per cent of that group work part time. That is a lot of non-participation. In 2011, 23 percent of married-couple family groups with children under 15 had a stay-at-home mother, up from 21 percent in 2000. The recent peak (just like the US tax revenue peak) was in 2007, at 24 percent.** So I don't think I would say that they are rare now, though they are probably less common than families want them to be, due to the troubled economy.

**Data from America's Families and Living Arrangements Table SHP-1 <>


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> My lie to yourself quote was in reply to this line from your first post.
> 
> Claiming that there is a long standing tradition of obstruction is true - claiming that tradition has ever even come close to the 112th Congress is simply untrue.


Till you provide evidence from when Republicans controlled the House and the Democrats controlled the Senate, I'll just assume you're lying to yourself. In fact, anybody who disagrees with someone else's political views must by lying to him or her self.


----------



## mrkleen

P Hudson said:


> Till you provide evidence from when Republicans controlled the House and the Democrats controlled the Senate, I'll just assume you're lying to yourself. In fact, anybody who disagrees with someone else's political views must by lying to him or her self.


Listen, there are reems of articles talking about how disgraceful the 112th Congress has performed....lead by a historic amount of obstruction from Republicans. I am not here to chew your food for you.


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> Listen, there are reems of articles talking about how disgraceful the 112th Congress has performed....lead by a historic amount of obstruction from Republicans. I am not here to chew your food for you.


My recollection of the US system is that the House passes bills, and then sends them to the Senate. All I want to know is how many bills have died at the hands of the DEMOCRAT dominated Senate. Till I get some sense of that, I don't care about how many articles you find, because while politics is about consensus, truth isn't.


----------



## arkirshner

P Hudson said:


> My recollection of the US system is that the House passes bills, and then sends them to the Senate. All I want to know is how many bills have died at the hands of the DEMOCRAT dominated Senate. Till I get some sense of that, I don't care about how many articles you find, because while politics is about consensus, truth isn't.


By way of explanation, not to take sides, almost all bills in the US Senate are subject to filibusters, a parliamentary procedure whereby one side can continue the debate on a subject until a 3/5 majority votes to end debate. As a practical matter this means that unless the proponents of a bill have 60 Senators in favor of passage, those opposed to the bill can block it. Both parties, when in the minority, have used the filibuster to block bills proposed by the majority. In the current Congress, (beginning 2010), the Democrats have 53 Senators, the Republicans 47. While the Democrats have a majority they cannot be said to "dominate" the Senate as the Republicans can, and have, filibustered those bills they decided to block. In past congresses, when in the minority, the Democrats filibustered bills in the Senate. (I understand that this practice is not possible in the Australian Parliament.)


----------



## arkirshner

OOPS double post (contents deleted)


----------



## P Hudson

arkirshner said:


> By way of explanation, not to take sides, almost all bills in the US Senate are subject to filibusters, a parliamentary procedure whereby one side can continue the debate on a subject until a 3/5 majority votes to end debate. As a practical matter this means that unless the proponents of a bill have 60 Senators in favor of passage, those opposed to the bill can block it. Both parties, when in the minority, have used the filibuster to block bills proposed by the majority. In the current Congress, (beginning 2010), the Democrats have 53 Senators, the Republicans 47. While the Democrats have a majority they cannot be said to "dominate" the Senate as the Republicans can, and have, filibustered those bills they decided to block. In past congresses, when in the minority, the Democrats filibustered bills in the Senate. (I understand that this practice is not possible in the Australian Parliament.)


That's helpful. It again, for me, raises the question, how many bills did the House pass that died in the Senate? And do you mean to imply that the Republicans in the Senate are filibustering bills that the Republicans in the House have passed? I don't have a horse in this race, but with people accusing one party or other about blocking legislation, I thought I would ask what is really happening.


----------



## Jovan

Fashion Frank said:


> Regardless of who was "right or wrong" in the debate on talking points, Biden was flat out rude and all over the place with the arm waving ,interrupting etc.etc.etc.
> 
> The President did the same thing with the " aircarft carriers are things planes land on" being very condescending and talking down to Romney.
> 
> Am I mistaken or was there suppose to be no discourse on politick's on this Forum?
> 
> All the Best , Fashion Frank


Politics are allowed in The Interchange, not any other forum.


----------



## arkirshner

P Hudson said:


> That's helpful. It again, for me, raises the question, how many bills did the House pass that died in the Senate? And do you mean to imply that the Republicans in the Senate are filibustering bills that the Republicans in the House have passed? I don't have a horse in this race, but with people accusing one party or other about blocking legislation, I thought I would ask what is really happening.


While partisans will spin it otherwise, this is basically what happened. The Congress elected in 2008, in session Jan 09 to Jan 11, the D controlled the House, the Senate was 60 D-40 R. The Rs in the Senate stuck together while the Ds often had 1 or 2 defections on some issues and Sen Kennedy was ill and absent much of the time. As a result the Rs in the Senate blocked quite a few measures. The Health care bill was pushed through the Senate on a rare procedure, generally unavailable, called a reconciliation bill which required only a majority. After Sen. Kennedy's death in August 09 the Rs won the election for his unexpired term and then held 41 seats which allowed them to block what ever they chose.

The Congress elected in 2010, opened Jan 2011 saw a Republican controlled House and a 53 D 47R Senate. The R House passed bills the Ds in the Senate found unacceptable, thus an impasse on many issues including proposed stimulus bills.On a few issues a House/Senate reconciliation committee negotiated something acceptable to both but only a few. Even on these both sides played a game of chicken as in measures to increase the debt ceiling where default was only days away.


----------



## P Hudson

arkirshner said:


> While partisans will spin it otherwise, this is basically what happened. The Congress elected in 2008, in session Jan 09 to Jan 11, the D controlled the House, the Senate was 60 D-40 R. The Rs in the Senate stuck together while the Ds often had 1 or 2 defections on some issues and Sen Kennedy was ill and absent much of the time. As a result the Rs in the Senate blocked quite a few measures. The Health care bill was pushed through the Senate on a rare procedure, generally unavailable, called a reconciliation bill which required only a majority. After Sen. Kennedy's death in August 09 the Rs won the election for his unexpired term and then held 41 seats which allowed them to block what ever they chose.
> 
> The Congress elected in 2010, opened Jan 2011 saw a Republican controlled House and a 53 D 47R Senate. The R House passed bills the Ds in the Senate found unacceptable, thus an impasse on many issues including proposed stimulus bills.On a few issues a House/Senate reconciliation committee negotiated something acceptable to both but only a few. Even on these both sides played a game of chicken as in measures to increase the debt ceiling where default was only days away.


Just for clarification: 1) so the House Republicans passed bills knowing that they would be unacceptable to the Democrats in the Senate? 2) how can the most opposed piece of legislation of all, the Health Care Bill, get through, but other bills of a more moderate nature can't? I guess the second question really means this: why is a "reconciliation bill" not more regularly available?

Also, my recollection is that when 18 Democrats in the Senate opposed civil rights legislation back in the 1960s, the Senate broke the nearly 2 month long filibuster (after Robert Byrd's >14 hour speech against the legislation), with more than 80 per cent of the Republicans and more than 60 per cent of the Democrats voting for it. So is that ultimately a tribute to the Senators' willingness to re-write the legislation, a willingness that is lacking today? (I'm afraid I have no memory of the composition of that congress: I believe the House was controlled by Democrats, but can't remember who controlled the Senate.)

Addendum: I found the composition of the 1964 congress. It was 65 Democrats and 35 Republicans in the Senate along with 255 Democrats and 177 Republicans in the House.


----------



## Apatheticviews

I watched the 3rd party presidential debate (hosted by Larry King) yesterday on youtube. Honestly, quite refreshing. I realize that none of them will win, but I would much rather have any of those 4 than either Romney or Obama at this point. Party politics wasn't shellacked onto them so heavily that it shined like our cookie cutter republican or democrat counter parts. If you get a chance, watch it, it's worse it.


----------



## mrkleen

P Hudson said:


> My recollection of the US system is that the House passes bills, and then sends them to the Senate. All I want to know is how many bills have died at the hands of the DEMOCRAT dominated Senate. Till I get some sense of that, I don't care about how many articles you find, because while politics is about consensus, truth isn't.


Maybe you should start with the definition of the word "filibuster" and why it makes no difference who has the majority, you need a SUPER majority to get anything done.

From the time of the invention of the cloture rule, during World War I, until the end of the Reagan administration, there were a total of 385 cloture motions filed. That's a span of about 70 years. But in the five and a half years since Republicans lost control of the Senate after the 2006 elections, there have been 359 cloture motions filed.


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> Maybe you should start with the definition of the word "filibuster" and why it makes no difference who has the majority, you need a SUPER majority to get anything done.
> 
> From the time of the invention of the cloture rule, during World War I, until the end of the Reagan administration, there were a total of 385 cloture motions filed. That's a span of about 70 years. But in the five and a half years since Republicans lost control of the Senate after the 2006 elections, there have been 359 cloture motions filed.


Much of this is new to me, so I had a look at Wikipedia to interpret some of the terms. This is taken from what Wikipedia says about the cloture motion in the US:
"The new version of the cloture rule, which has remained in place since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to invoke cloture. This has considerably strengthened the power of the majority, and allowed it to pass many bills that would otherwise have been filibustered."

Does this mean your point is that the Democrats in the Senate no longer need cooperation from the Republicans, because, using cloture, they can and do more easily overcome filibusters? I thought your point was that it was MORE difficult for the Democrat majority to pass laws, but you're linking to a chart that says that during the 112th congress, the Democrats have filed for cloture 109 times--I'm assuming that the Democrats (as the majority) are the ones doing the filing[?]). Or are you pointing out that only 37 times cloture was invoked, demonstrating that the Democrats were frustrated roughly 2/3 of the time, but succeeded 1/3. I'm not sure what that says about 1) the Democrats, 2) the quality of Republican opposition (how did they manage to stop so many when the system is in place for them to be overridden?), 3) the quality of the bills being considered. Does this mean that too many Democrats ultimately rejected the bills?


----------



## mrkleen

P Hudson said:


> Much of this is new to me, so I had a look at Wikipedia to interpret some of the terms. This is taken from what Wikipedia says about the cloture motion in the US:
> "The new version of the cloture rule, which has remained in place since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to invoke cloture. This has considerably strengthened the power of the majority, and allowed it to pass many bills that would otherwise have been filibustered."
> 
> Does this mean your point is that the Democrats in the Senate no longer need cooperation from the Republicans, because, using cloture, they can and do more easily overcome filibusters? I thought your point was that it was MORE difficult for the Democrat majority to pass laws, but you're linking to a chart that says that during the 112th congress, the Democrats have filed for cloture 109 times--I'm assuming that the Democrats (as the majority) are the ones doing the filing[?]). Or are you pointing out that only 37 times cloture was invoked, demonstrating that the Democrats were frustrated roughly 2/3 of the time, but succeeded 1/3. I'm not sure what that says about 1) the Democrats, 2) the quality of Republican opposition (how did they manage to stop so many when the system is in place for them to be overridden?), 3) the quality of the bills being considered. Does this mean that too many Democrats ultimately rejected the bills?


I cant tell if you are intentionally misinterpreting what Cloture means - or honestly misunderstand it.

Cloture is the procedure used to break a filibuster. Between 1919 and 1975, a successful cloture motion required two-thirds of the Senate. Today, it requires three-fifths, or, in cases where all 100 senators are present and voting, 60 votes. So more cloture votes means that the majority is having to try and break many, many, many more filibusters than ever before.


----------



## Bucksfan

L-feld said:


> 100% correct. Things that need to go away:
> 
> 1. Deductions for mortgage interest. This bias in favor of homeowners has existed for far too long. If the past few years have taught us anything, it's that the government has no business incentivizing mortgages and, if it's going to, FHA mortgage insurance is more than enough. This deduction is also a boon to real estate investors and real estate developers, much like the old short term real estate amortization term was. Those are two professions that will do just fine without any extra perks.
> 
> 2. Pre-tax health insurance premiums. This is primarily a boon to employers who would provide insurance regardless. There are very few employers who actually have tipped over in favor of providing insurance due to the this nice little exclusion. With the money saved, we could fund a proper single payer plan.
> 
> 3. Unqualified 501(c)(3) status for religious organizations. They should be subject to the same transparency and scrutiny as any other nonprofit. Too much private inurement occurs without notice.
> 
> 4. Deductions for donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. Once again, this gives an unfair advantage to those who itemize their deductions, who more often than not are wealthy individuals or corporations (or individuals paying a mortgage, but that's a different story). Will big ticket 501(c)(3)'s be able to reap the same huge tax shelter donations from large corporations? No, but then again the Susan G. Komen Foundation isn't really doing much good with that money. Small, localized nonprofts would be largely unaffected as their donations come from less wealthy individuals who aren't itemizing anyway.
> 
> 5. The AMT. Nobody understands it and it's keyed to wildly outdated income brackets. It is also, arguably, not necessary anymore because stay at home mothers are so rare now. I can appreciate the intent behind it back in the 60's when married men with non-working spouses would shelter their income by filing joint returns, but that isn't the reality anymore.


I've heard some interesting things about #1 - I agree with your comments on incentive, but like most things, it will take a lot of political capital to take that one away. Even middle-class families who may not itemize REALLY like the mortgage deduction (most voters are incredibly uneducated on the issues, after all).

More likely, all deductions will end up being capped at a certain #. My Congressman sits on the select revenue subcommittee of the House Weighs & Means Committee, and he indicated to me that taking away the mortgage interest deduction completely was a non-starter last time it came up.

Regarding the other points, I generally agree, though I am not sure the majority wants a single-payer health plan. There is a larger issue here - the tax code is far too complex, with too many potential "loop-holes" and "gotchas."

The major problem from a business owner's perspective is uncertainty. I consult with a number of businesses, from 10-employee to 5000+. I have heard from many of my clients that they are sitting on a huge amount of cash, because they simply do not know what lies in store for them next year and the year after, regarding health care, tax policy, etc and the effect of those on the broader economy and therefore their business. You hear the politicians say it, but I also hear business owners and decision makers say it: "tell me what the rules will be so I can make decisions about hiring and resource allocation."


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> You keep on addressing both me and mrkleen as if we're blind Obama supporters.


OK.

One eye half open maybe??


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> I cant tell if you are intentionally misinterpreting what Cloture means - or honestly misunderstand it.
> 
> Cloture is the procedure used to break a filibuster. Between 1919 and 1975, a successful cloture motion required two-thirds of the Senate. Today, it requires three-fifths, or, in cases where all 100 senators are present and voting, 60 votes. So more cloture votes means that the majority is having to try and break many, many, many more filibusters than ever before.


Ok. I took the discussion of cloture to mean that structural change makes it easier for the majority to get their way, rendering filibuster a much weaker means of obstruction.

So is the outcome of our discussion that the Senate Republicans (not the House Republicans) are behind the reduction in new federal legislation? And how does this relate to the idea that bills are generated in the House: are Senate Republicans blocking bills presented by House Republicans?


----------



## mrkleen

P Hudson said:


> Ok. I took the discussion of cloture to mean that structural change makes it easier for the majority to get their way, rendering filibuster a much weaker means of obstruction.
> 
> So is the outcome of our discussion that the Senate Republicans (not the House Republicans) are behind the reduction in new federal legislation? And how does this relate to the idea that *bills are generated in the Hous*e: are Senate Republicans blocking bills presented by House Republicans?


Other than in fiscal matters, *Bills can be generated in EITHER the house or the senate*....but both must pass an identical bill before it goes to the President to sign or veto.

Maybe you should read this page - written for children - on the way congress works, as you clearly have some incorrect ideas.

https://kids.clerk.house.gov/high-school/lesson.html?intID=17


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> Other than in fiscal matters, *Bills can be generated in EITHER the house or the senate*....but both must pass an identical bill before it goes to the President to sign or veto.
> 
> Maybe you should read this page - written for children - on the way congress works, as you clearly have some incorrect ideas.
> 
> https://kids.clerk.house.gov/high-school/lesson.html?intID=17


Why do you so consistently reach for insults? Do you think you might have some incorrect ideas about how government works in my country? Or do you just assume that people the world over ought to understand your system and think the way you do? It just comes across as bigoted and narrow.


----------



## mrkleen

P Hudson said:


> Why do you so consistently reach for insults? Do you think you might have some incorrect ideas about how government works in my country? Or do you just assume that people the world over ought to understand your system and think the way you do? It just comes across as bigoted and narrow.


What in the last post is an insult? The page is called "KIDS In The House" - it seems to be a good place for you to start.

If you dont understand the US system of government, maybe you shouldn't be debating about it. You dont see me debating about Australian government.


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> What in the last post is an insult? The page is called "KIDS In The House" - it seems to be a good place for you to start.
> 
> If you dont understand the US system of government, maybe you shouldn't be debating about it. You dont see me debating about Australian government.


I didn't think this was a debate. I thought it was a place for conversation, and I raised a few questions along the way. In fact, I primarily tried to raise one very specific question.

You, on the one hand, have accused me of lying to myself, asked if I am intentionally misunderstanding things, and suggested that I should read a child's book. I, on the other hand, don't feel the need to get personal or be condescending in this. Neither did ArKirschner in response to my question on the last page. I'm not sure why you do: is it because you thought it was a debate?


----------



## mrkleen

P Hudson said:


> I didn't think this was a debate. I thought it was a place for conversation, and I raised a few questions along the way. In fact, I primarily tried to raise one very specific question.
> 
> You, on the one hand, have accused me of lying to myself, asked if I am intentionally misunderstanding things, and suggested that I should read a child's book. I, on the other hand, don't feel the need to get personal or be condescending in this. Neither did ArKirschner in response to my question on the last page. I'm not sure why you do: is it because you thought it was a debate?


Again, this babe in the woods act is getting old....so this will be my last reply to you.

If you had taken a moment to look at the long and storied history of the interchange - you would see the posts related to politics often end up with a level of debate, back and forth banter and somewhat less dignified discourse. That is precisely what this section of the site is for - and you can find thousands of posts along those lines.

The fact that you are unaware of that and what many of the posts in the "interchange" are like - once again, proves you are jumping into something you know very little about.

This discussion was going on long before you entered. You dont get to show up late to the game and change the direction or the rules. If you dont like getting dirty and getting elbowed in the head - dont sign up for the rugby team. Seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## P Hudson

mrkleen said:


> Again, this babe in the woods act is getting old....so this will be my last reply to you.
> 
> If you had taken a moment to look at the long and storied history of the interchange - you would see the posts related to politics often end up with a level of debate, back and forth banter and somewhat less dignified discourse. That is precisely what this section of the site is for - and you can find thousands of posts along those lines.
> 
> The fact that you are unaware of that and what many of the posts in the "interchange" are like - once again, proves you are jumping into something you know very little about.
> 
> This discussion was going on long before you entered. You dont get to show up late to the game and change the direction or the rules. If you dont like getting dirty and getting elbowed in the head - dont sign up for the rugby team. Seems pretty simple to me.


That's all fine, and I realise that political discussions can get a bit heated. But the only thing I said that could be interpreted as partisan is that I think Obama won the last debate. So I don't understand how anything I said could be misconstrued as containing any "level of debate". I didn't come into this with a point to assert, affirm or defend.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Mr, Hudson,
This forum was originally intended to be "a place for ladies and gentlemen to sit back in a plush leather club chair, with drink and cigar in hand and pleasantly discuss the great issues of the day that are not about clothes." But because of the behavior of some it has indeed mutated into a "place for getting dirty and being elbowed in the head." Sad and disappointing.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Mr, Hudson,
> This forum was originally intended to be "a place for ladies and gentlemen to sit back in a plush leather club chair, with drink and cigar in hand and pleasantly discuss the great issues of the day that are not about clothes." But because of the behavior of some it has indeed mutated into a "place for getting dirty and being elbowed in the head." Sad and disappointing.


It's almost as if it were 'getting under your skin'. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> It's almost as if it were 'getting under your skin'. :icon_smile_wink:


It is true that I'm disappointed that this forum could not be what was envisioned, and if that is what you mean -- guilty.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> It is true that I'm disappointed that this forum could not be what was envisioned, and if that is what you mean -- guilty.


Just a gentle leg pull. :redface:

Actually, and this is absolutely not directed at anyone in particular, I am tended toward the belief that those who express themselves discourteously in political debate are normally most easily vanquished - and most especially without recourse to similar tactics. Thus one might always take it as a sure sign of one's own correctness - or at very least an opportunity to establish correctness, even without firm footing - when churlishness is directed one's way.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> Just a gentle leg pull. :redface:
> 
> Actually, and this is absolutely not directed at anyone in particular, I am tended toward the belief that those who express themselves discourteously in political debate are normally most easily vanquished - and most especially without recourse to similar tactics. Thus one might always take it as a sure sign of one's own correctness - or at very least an opportunity to establish correctness, even without firm footing - when churlishness is directed one's way.


That is a fair observation. I would also note that Internet anonymity is a huge factor. One reason I use my real name is because I want and intend to behave as a gentleman. I understand that there are perfectly valid reasons to prefer anonymity, and don't criticize others who make that choice, but I do think it operates to favor cheap shots over discourse. You will note that I posted (#81) a reasonably brief but quite substantive policy explanation for Romney's tax plan (the putative subject of this thread), and it elicited exactly zero substantive responses. Just intemperate slogans.


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> those who express themselves discourteously in political debate are normally most easily vanquished - and most especially without recourse to similar tactics. Thus one might always take it as a sure sign of one's own correctness - or at very least an opportunity to establish correctness, even without firm footing - when churlishness is directed one's way.


I am also struck by the fact that some people who hold strong political views can respect (at least some of) those on the other side, while some seem to loathe by definition anyone on the other side. We can all think of examples of the latter category - Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Labour. They always strike me as a fairly childish bunch. Of course politics is a dirty game. But they are rather like the parody of the litigation lawyer:

"It's not enough that we win. You guys gotta lose. Lose with extreme prejudice."


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> That is a fair observation. I would also note that Internet anonymity is a huge factor. One reason I use my real name is because I want and intend to behave as a gentleman. I understand that there are perfectly valid reasons to prefer anonymity, and don't criticize others who make that choice, but I do think it operates to favor cheap shots over discourse. You will note that I posted (#81) a reasonably brief but quite substantive policy explanation for Romney's tax plan (the putative subject of this thread), and it elicited exactly zero substantive responses. Just intemperate slogans.


Meandering somewhat off-topic I have never understood the anonymity effect. It strikes me as most odd that someone would seek to behave in this manner, for my own part I contribute here just as I would anywhere in the 'real' world.



Balfour said:


> ...... But they are rather like the parody of the litigation lawyer:
> 
> "It's not enough that we win. You guys gotta lose. Lose with extreme prejudice."


That made me smile, I haven't heard it before - in my worst moments I have probably felt that way deep down inside, though. :redface:


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> Mr, Hudson,
> This forum was originally intended to be "a place for ladies and gentlemen to sit back in a plush leather club chair, with drink and cigar in hand and pleasantly discuss the great issues of the day that are not about clothes." But because of the behavior of some it has indeed mutated into a "place for getting dirty and being elbowed in the head." Sad and disappointing.


There are PLENTY of topics in this section of the site which are not about politics - where people discuss the issues of the day. They by far out number the threads where politics cause the discussion to become somewhat more heated.

Funny thing is - much of the poor attitude displayed out here is in direct response to the condescending, holier than thou attitude displayed by people like yourself. With your constant "oh you dont have the acumen to understand X" or "I dont expect someone of your intellect to understand Y" - if THAT is what you call "pleasantly discussed" conversations - it is no wonder you are disappointed.

You are like someone with matches in his hand, trying to claim you dont know how the fire started.



Mike Petrik said:


> You will note that I posted (#81) a reasonably brief but quite substantive policy explanation for Romney's tax plan (the putative subject of this thread), and it elicited exactly zero substantive responses. Just intemperate slogans.


Actually Shaver added an eloquent retort to you long and rambling post (#81) which you clearly have selected to ignore.



Shaver said:


> *At any rate if one's political position cannot be expressed in such a manner that it's audience is able to comprehend it then that is really not so smart, is it?*


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen,

Regarding your bizarre accusations and interpretation of events, I'm happy to let the entire record speak for itself. 

As for Shaver's comment, I guess I did not notice it or at least regard it as relevant to my post. In any case, I do not think that post #81 was too difficult for most educated people. Admittedly, it does require a bit more careful reading (and thinking) than some folks will choose to invest.


----------



## blairrob

Mike Petrik said:


> mrkleen,
> 
> As for Shaver's comment, I guess I did not notice it or at least regard it as relevant to my post. In any case, I do not think that post #81 was too difficult for most educated people. Admittedly, it does require a bit more careful reading (and thinking) than some folks will choose to invest.


I agree with several of your points here, including and critically that tax codes generally need to be reworked. That is the truth.

Secondly, it is also well known that citizens who are active members of religious organizations are notable contributors to charity but it is probably because the church creates a sense of community, and some believe it is this sense of community which activates the desire to be a responsible community member, and that this is shared by other non-religious organizations or communities which inspires the same sense of communal giving.

Your post does suggest that tax cuts are a positive thing, at least in generating income. If one assumes that then I suspect one is also suggesting that tax cuts are a positive thing for an economy at large. They may be, but that entirely depends on the outcome you seek as a higher level of overall income in an economy is not by itself an indicator of economic wellness and certainly is not the primary indicator of satisfaction for the majority of participants in any given economy. It has become quite clear over the last century that capitalist markets do not act rationally because people too often do not act rationally, and hence we need some regulation to oversee our markets. In the academic vacuum of economic theory unfettered capitalism works until sociological reality is laid over it and the model fails to live up to expectation. History has shown that tax cutting economics, at least as it relates to over quality of life does not work, and it is due to the individual behavior not fitting the 'logical' model theorists expect.


----------



## Apatheticviews

The biggest issue with the US tax system now (as with the US legal system) is that it takes an expert to understand it. It shouldn't be mystical. It shouldn't be convoluted. There shouldn't even be the perception of unfairness. For every $1000 you make you pay X or for every $1000 you consume you pay X.

K.I.S.S.

It's the old Napoleon's Corporal philosophy. If you can't hand it to a normal person, and have him understand it, it can't be implemented.

400 million Americans. Who knows how many on work visas, not including corporations, and other company types. It has to be simple. The tax code needs to fit on a book that I can fit in my pocket. Start from scratch, and do it right.


----------



## Jovan

^ Something I definitely agree with.


----------



## petro

wrwhiteknight said:


> If by "grasp" you mean the republican tendency to stick the muzzle of his pistol in someone-elses living room, then yes, I would say he does have a better "grasp" than Obama or Biden.


You mean like keeping out of Yemen and Libya and getting us out of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Oh. Sorry. Facts are such pesky things.



> Republicans suffer from an inability to stay calm when foreign policy gets highly-charged because the entire platform is based upon leading by example, in contrast to Romney's criticism of Obama as "leading from behind".


No, it's about competence.

Bush had *some* he tried to play an international game of checkers. Obama has *none*, he's playing whack-a-mole.

In the 2008 Democrat primary Hilliary asked what Obama would do when he got that "3 am phone call".

Well, now that it's happened we know. He'd roll over and go back to sleep letting 2 former Navy Seals using picked up weapons to die fighting off over 100 armed attackers in an attempt to save a US ambassador. Then he'd get up and go to a fund raiser in Las Vegas, blame a 3rd rate

And then lie about it for weeks.

This is on top of his "smarter" diplomacy over much of the middle east during the so-called "Arab Spring".



> Well, if it is a bad thing to end the war in Iraq,


That was pretty much on Bush's timetable, and things haven't gone quite so well since we pulled out.

Of course the *war* was pretty much over (I was there in 2009, and it wasn't a war zone. It wasn't peaceful, but then neither is Detroit, East St. Louis, or the south side of Chicago.) and we were mostly just killing iranian and syrian jihadis and trying to help the Iraqi government sort itself out.

Which, BTW Obama had no interest in doing. Bush spoke with the Iraqi PM about once a week. Obama spoke to him once or twice two years, delegating that task to a mid-level state department functionary.

He's managed to irritate or piss off almost all of our *former* allies, from England to Poland. Even Australia is making noises about deliberately realigning. Which is kinda surprising because other than color and sex Gillard and Obama are two tax and spend, socialist, incompetent peas in a pod.



> and to phase out of Afghanistan with the goal of making the Afghan government capable of dealing with its' own internal security, then yes, Obama certainly is guilty of leading from behind.


It's the part starting at "with a goal" that Obama has completely failed on. Now, I'll grant that better minds than Obama have tried to sort out Afghanistan and failed, but he deliberately ignored the advice of folks who have actual experience in the area and figured that like the seas receding and globe cooling (which started back in 1996/7 according to the Hadley CRU measurements  ) it would just happen because he's a light worker and willed it.

Now, as I granted above Afghanistan is a HUGE problem. As is Pakistan, Syria, a resurgent Russia (which like Obama has delusions of being smarter and better than they really are, and unlike Obama they are willing to actually mix it up to get what they want. I half expect them to attack Georgia within hours of the polls closing in November, especially if Romney wins--that gives them 3 months to consolidate their gains before facing a pair of balls).



> The two party system is so flawed from a voting perspective because it becomes not a choice of who do I _want_ to vote for, but rather who _can't_ I vote for.


Every state in the world is effectively either 1 or 2 party.

Those, like Germany (et. al.) who have significant 2nd teir players *still* have to form fairly fragile coalitions to "rule", and in all of them you have no choice at *all* in the PM. In most of those countries you don't even get a chance to vote on who will run in a given party. You get who the party nominates to run, and you then get to pick which *party* to vote for.

In the US you have the ability at *every* stage to get involved and have your 1/<x> say. You can follow the procedures for your party and run during the primaries, you can vote for a *wide* selection of folks in the primaries, or you can wait for the general and vote for one of four to 10 candidates.

Yes, statistically speaking there's only 1 or 2 who have a chance of winning, but that's generally true across the board.



> For my part, I _can't_ vote for a candidate who has said he does not approve of any new gun control laws,


True, because history shows over and over that the more you disarm law abiding people the less they get preyed on by armed thugs.

There are already enough stupid gun laws on the books, but if you don't charge folks with them, or if you deliberately subvert them like Eric Holder's DoJ did in Fast 'n Furious, then they don't do any good.

As the bumpersticker says "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns". Of course, Kennedy's dead and I have a few more years with my guns, so that may change.



> who doesn't think the commander and chief has been aggressive enough in flexing his military muscle,


The problem is that he *has* used "military muscle" (Somolia, Yemen, Libya), he's just done it, like he's done everything except maybe the final four bracket, poorly.

And there's two dead SEALS, One Ambassador and one other Stater dead to demonstrate that.

Oh, but those are distractions, right? Speed bumps I think your dear leader called them?



> and who has said that he will not touch military funding. The Republican party has shown us and the world over and over that they are willing to go to war; period. Do we really need that?


Clinton got us into the Balkans and many other places. Carter supported the CIA efforts in Angola, Kennedy into Vietnam, just to name a few.

Obama launched on Libya at the request a few of our European "Allies" because the brewing civil war there was threatening their oil supplies. The thing about military muscle flexing is that if you pull a punch your opponent gets up and get a turn.



> And the few of you who mentioned nuclear weapons. This is not even an issue, not on the radar, this isn't a comic book.


North Korea, Iran, China and Russia.

No, nukes are NOT AN ISSUE AT ALL to the progressive left. They really DO NOT want to talk about it. They'd rather defend Big Bird.

The really, really funny thing is that Romney is, in the positions he's supported as Gov., a Billy Clinton without the hornyness and the co-president wife.


----------



## petro

Shaver said:


> Problem being; the robust growth doesn't end up in the pockets of the working man.


Sure it does.



> It's the revenue lost because companies like Starbucks and Google and Amazon wriggle out of taxes* that could really make a difference.


Amazon doesn't wriggle out of anything. They don't *collect* taxes for the states they ship stuff to. There is a difference. If you don't understand the difference then we need to know that so we can evaluate your statements in that light.

Oh, yeah, you're English.

So let's explain this for you. In the US we do not (yet) have something like your VAT. We have "sales tax" which is not at the federal level, but at the *state* level. In general merchants in a state are required to collect tax on sales of citizens and residents (to include temporary residents) of that state. They are generally NOT required to collect tax on sales to out of state residents because those folks are supposed to pay the taxes themselves (generally) to THEIR state.

This is in part because each state is, well, a different state, and because each state has different laws about what is and isn't taxed, and there are also county and local taxes, which means that someone in Redding California would, in say 1993, have NO IDEA what someone in Stidham, OK should be paying in sales tax, and would have no idea who to remit it to, should they get a call on the phone.

Most states did not require "catalog purchases" coming in from out of state to collect taxes for their state. In general this was no great loss because the cost of enforcement would have exceeded the taxes collected, and it just wasn't very common, so most of what was getting bought was stuff that either wasn't available locally, or stuff that was too embarrassing to buy.

The thing is that like the Federal Government, city and state governments have been increasing their power, budgets, employees and rules and regulations and are just as power and money hungry. The housing crunch has devastated a lot of local and county governments (who rely on property taxes as well as sales taxes) and they perceive a LOT of purchasing shift from local to internet (which it has for lots of reasons). Folks don't like this generally (most folks only want bigger government in *certain* areas) and don't like paying additional taxes.

Amazon resisted becoming a tax collection arm of the state(s) as long as they could. They eventually gave in and will start collecting on one or two states soon. I suspect the rest will follow.

[quopte]*as example, horrifyingly, Starbucks do not pay tax in the UK despite the multi-billion £ turnover of their franchise here[/QUOTE]

Just so we're clear, this is the US election, and US tax law we're talking about. I have limited knowledge of UK tax law, but I'm pretty sure that Obama (and next year Romney) has limited (and at this point functionally negative) influence in that area.

I have no idea why Starbucks doesn't pay taxes in the UK, but I submit that it is much more likely a problem for your parliament than our President.


----------



## Jovan

Hold on a second, petro. So wanting everyone to conduct the background checks that they SHOULD be doing is just a silly new gun law by liberals that causes more death than it solves? Wake up!

I'm not against ordinary, decent citizens carrying firearms. I'm against known criminals and mental patients getting around the laws _that are already in place_ to prevent them from murdering. This is a known problem. When asked about it, Romney segways into this sound byte about how if every child had a mother and father (not two parents, not a loving and caring SINGLE parent) that these things wouldn't happen. Please, do inform me how that is supposed to help.


----------



## petro

Shaver said:


> 1) It's fine with me too. However those who benefit the most from capitalism should be obliged to assist those for whom capitalism fails - or even, at the very least, pay the same rate as some poor stiff working minimum wage.


They generally DO pay the same rates (or higher) on the same types of income. Tax "shelters" are, generally speaking, GONE. There are lots of deductions out there, and folks DO pay different rates of tax on different types of income, but that's for social policy rather than tax maximisation reasons.

Let's just look at three different types of income:

1) Regular income, as from workin for a livin or short term capital gains (gains on stuff held less than 2 years).

2) Gains from sales of of long term assets (aka long term capital gains).

3) Gains from "tax free municipal bonds".

Now, #1 we all understand and agree should be taxed at some rate. We understand this, and we can generally understand cost/benefit analysis based on raising these rates. At least I hope we do.

#2 and #3 are what get most people irate. To the extent that Buffet pays a lower *rate* than his secretary (although I think that was proven to be a "missunderstanding"[1] it's because he has a "invest and hold" philosophy making most of his gains "long term", and because he invests in tax free munis when he can.

This irks a LOT of people, but stop and think why these rules are there. The Long Term Capital Gains rule is in place to attempt get investors to think in longer horizons--to invest in companies with long term potential and to insist on good governance in those companies.

And those are the companies that hire the "average joe". You want the to focus on the long term and on stability and it's best if you encourage investors to do likewise.

So we can have an argument over getting rid of this sort of rule, but stop and think about what hte third and fourth order effects will be. Investing in even shorter horizons, more HFT, more "flipping" investements, and folks who's timelines are already pretty short and morals even shorter will have even less reason to invest in stability.

#3, tax free municipal bonds are a similar situation. In general cities can't pay high rates of returns on their bonds, but they need to be able to issue them from time to time for capital improvements (bridges, new schools etc.). These bonds often barely beat inflation (unless the progressives run the government, then they almost never beat inflation) and aren't attractive vehicles for savy investors.

Unless you make the the gains tax free. Then the become really attractive to investors who's primary interest is in a (relatively) safe income investment.

These investments weren't put there to make Buffet's tax rates lower, they were put there to encourage him to invest in America directly rather than whatever markets are hotter this year.

When you make fundamental changes to the tax code you have to stop and think about how those ramifications play out.

Just like when Reagan convinced Congress to fundamentally restructure the tax code in the early 80s and we went from the sort of tax shelters that got you a 40-60% savings on your taxes to a LOT fewer tax deductions that saved you very, very little we, after a couple of rough years, grew massively for almost 20-25 years.

Reagan had a degree in Economics. He had a general idea of what he was doing. Obama learned his economics at the feet of 60s progressives and jackasses like Rev. White. He has *no* idea how an economy works, and has damn little idea of what "work" is.



> 2) Close loopholes. We agree! :icon_smile:


You just want senior citizens to lose income and get thrown out on the street.



> 4) I have been accused of both communism and fascism in the same political debate. That's probably squeeking out here too. ahem.


That's because from where us Libertarians sit there's no so little difference and so much cross pollination between the two.

[1] Republicans lie. Democrats make mistakes.


----------



## petro

Jovan said:


> Hold on a second, petro. So wanting everyone to conduct the background checks that they SHOULD be doing is just a silly new gun law by liberals that causes more death than it solves? Wake up!


There is a *federal* law on the books that requires an instant background check for any firearm sold through a dealer.

There are, in many states, already laws on the books requiring pistol (and in some states rifles) to go through a registered FFL, which triggers the background check.

It is also a felony to sell a firearm to someone you know is a prohibited person.

The problem is that once you've got those two cases covered--dealers have to run a federal (and often state) check, and it's illegal to sell to someone you KNOW is prohibited, each additional check becomes more intrusive and more expensive, and stops a smaller number of sales. Law of diminishing returns.

We aren't allowed to ask for *ID* to vote. You certainly can't ask for ID to buy a book, or to write one.

I think that the current mechanisms are a VERY reasonable balance of my right to keep AND BEAR arms, and the government's responsibility to structure things so individuals are protected.

There simply is *no* way to keep criminals from getting firearms. None. Cannot Be Done. There is little that can be done to keep firearms from someone who is insane but not yet under treatment. (BTW, the same laws about owning firearms apply to voting. May I please use my voter registration card to buy guns? After all the state is saying that I'm eligible to vote, which means I'm not a felon or certain kinds of insane).

But see, I did wake up, a long time ago and I know that those aren't the sorts of gun laws the idiot progressives are after. The left doesn't want some piddly little twitches in the process of getting a firearm. They want the so-called "assault weapons" ban back. They want all "concealable" pistols banned, and ultimately *all* private ownership of firearms, other than maybe .22 free pistols and fine Italian doubles banned.

This isn't me being paranoid, this what THEY HAVE SAID.

I *see* this here in Australia. I see what "common sense" gun laws have lead to. Like my house getting broken into at 3 in the morning and my wife assaulted (not sexually, just hit in teh face) by a 14 year old boy because there is NO FEAR of the resident. If you defend your property YOU go to jail. Like having to go through 2 weeks of paperwork and a 3 week wait just to get a piece of paper that gives you permission to show up at a club eevent and shoot SOMEONE ELSE'S gun. And a 6 month wait after that before you can apply for a pistol license. Heck, by the time I would have finished all the paperwork (Including the obligatory "we lost the paperwork...oh, hang on there it is in the other stack") my 2 year tour here would have been done (it's done in a month) and I'd have been headed back to the land of the free and the home of cheap dry cleaning (OB clothing content, getting a shirt cleaned and pressed here in the Outback is **$14** a shirt. Ouch).

I see over in England what "common sense" weapons laws lead to, like a guy who cuts the twine on paper bundles getting jail time for a utility/box knife. Like it being technically illegal to carry a box of kitchen knives home from the store. Like that poor farmer who shot some piece of human filth who broke into the farmers house WITH HIS BAIL RECEIPT STILL IN HIS POCKET and the farmer went to jail.



> I'm not against ordinary, decent citizens carrying firearms. I'm against known criminals and mental patients getting around the laws _that are already in place_ to prevent them from murdering. This is a known problem.


I'm going to type this slowing so it has time to sink in:

CRIMINALS ALREADY KNOW HOW TO GET AROUND THE LAW. Seriously. They do. That's how they get the label CRIMINAL.

If they are convicted felons, or have been adjudicated mentally incompetent and the state has seen fit to pass this data to the feds, then they will be denied when they go through a dealer.

If they are not going to a dealer, then you're not going to stop them. There will *always* be someone to sell them a gun. You can redirect a small number of sales through licensed FFLs at a minor added cost, but essentially criminals will either use a straw purchaser (already illegal, but you can't stop it) or they'll buy one on the black market, as they mostly do already.

I will grant you that the mentally insane are problematic. Guys like the dude who shot up the theatre in Denver and the dude who shot the congresswoman in Phoenix. Everyone in their life knew they were breaking down and losing it and NO ONE got them committed.

When family and culture break down laws cannot fix it.

The problem is that in our society being adjudicated mentally insane/incompetent really, really screws your life up (like schizophrenia doesn't already, no?). So both the folks with it, and their loved ones REALLY try to avoid that diagnosis. Even many doctors don't really want to have someone committed like that because it can make everything else so much harder.



> When asked about it, Romney segways into this sound byte about how if every child had a mother and father (not two parents, not a loving and caring SINGLE parent) that these things wouldn't happen. Please, do inform me how that is supposed to help.


He's a politician, and either (a) he's being asked about something he has very little passion or knowledge about (II) he knows that nothing the government can reasonably do will move the needle on this and that if he says that the hysteria from the Left and the Press (a very joined set) will be deafening or (3) both.


----------



## Mike Petrik

blairrob said:


> I agree with several of your points here, including and critically that tax codes generally need to be reworked. That is the truth.
> 
> Secondly, it is also well known that citizens who are active members of religious organizations are notable contributors to charity but it is probably because the church creates a sense of community, and some believe it is this sense of community which activates the desire to be a responsible community member, and that this is shared by other non-religious organizations or communities which inspires the same sense of communal giving.
> 
> Your post does suggest that tax cuts are a positive thing, at least in generating income. If one assumes that then I suspect one is also suggesting that tax cuts are a positive thing for an economy at large. They may be, but that entirely depends on the outcome you seek as a higher level of overall income in an economy is not by itself an indicator of economic wellness and certainly is not the primary indicator of satisfaction for the majority of participants in any given economy. It has become quite clear over the last century that capitalist markets do not act rationally because people too often do not act rationally, and hence we need some regulation to oversee our markets. In the academic vacuum of economic theory unfettered capitalism works until sociological reality is laid over it and the model fails to live up to expectation. History has shown that tax cutting economics, at least as it relates to over quality of life does not work, and it is due to the individual behavior not fitting the 'logical' model theorists expect.


A few observations:

Yes, religious people give much more to charity. Why this is so, I'm not entirely sure (and neither is Brooks). Your "community" theory is certainly plausible. America has always had both communitarian and libertarian impulses. These were reconciled by the fact that the former were exercised freely in the private sector through charity. The use of government as an agent for this purpose is something Americans are still trying to get comfortable with. Very few believe government has no role in caring for the needy; the debate is about the size of that role.

Tax cuts are always good for an economy, but only if one assumes governments still have enough resources to fulfill their role. Tax cuts do not always result in more tax revenue, though they can if the cuts are cuts of high rates. It is doubtful that current US individual rates are high enough in this sense.

I agree completely that free markets work perfectly only if one assumes perfect information and perfect rational behavior -- two conditions impossible to satisfy. Accordingly, some regulation of markets is desirable. Of course, government regulators don't have perfect information or behave with perfect reason either. The level and quality of regulation are where the hard questions reside.

I don't think history shows that tax cutting leads to diminished quality of life. I think it depends on to what extent a citizenry desires public goods and private goods. Some people are willing to be taxed more for more parks -- others not. Everyone is willing to tax other people for more parks though.


----------



## Shaver

petro said:


> Sure it does.
> 
> Amazon doesn't wriggle out of anything. They don't *collect* taxes for the states they ship stuff to. There is a difference. If you don't understand the difference then we need to know that so we can evaluate your statements in that light.
> 
> Oh, yeah, you're English.
> 
> So let's explain this for you. In the US we do not (yet) have something like your VAT. We have "sales tax" which is not at the federal level, but at the *state* level. In general merchants in a state are required to collect tax on sales of citizens and residents (to include temporary residents) of that state. They are generally NOT required to collect tax on sales to out of state residents because those folks are supposed to pay the taxes themselves (generally) to THEIR state.
> 
> This is in part because each state is, well, a different state, and because each state has different laws about what is and isn't taxed, and there are also county and local taxes, which means that someone in Redding California would, in say 1993, have NO IDEA what someone in Stidham, OK should be paying in sales tax, and would have no idea who to remit it to, should they get a call on the phone.
> 
> Most states did not require "catalog purchases" coming in from out of state to collect taxes for their state. In general this was no great loss because the cost of enforcement would have exceeded the taxes collected, and it just wasn't very common, so most of what was getting bought was stuff that either wasn't available locally, or stuff that was too embarrassing to buy.
> 
> The thing is that like the Federal Government, city and state governments have been increasing their power, budgets, employees and rules and regulations and are just as power and money hungry. The housing crunch has devastated a lot of local and county governments (who rely on property taxes as well as sales taxes) and they perceive a LOT of purchasing shift from local to internet (which it has for lots of reasons). Folks don't like this generally (most folks only want bigger government in *certain* areas) and don't like paying additional taxes.
> 
> Amazon resisted becoming a tax collection arm of the state(s) as long as they could. They eventually gave in and will start collecting on one or two states soon. I suspect the rest will follow.
> 
> Just so we're clear, this is the US election, and US tax law we're talking about. I have limited knowledge of UK tax law, but I'm pretty sure that Obama (and next year Romney) has limited (and at this point functionally negative) influence in that area.
> 
> I have no idea why Starbucks doesn't pay taxes in the UK, but I submit that it is much more likely a problem for your parliament than our President.


And there we have it. A masterclass of decontextualisation. The smeared premise bequeathing a false construct response - and with just a dash of smug sarcasm.

I think you might find, Petro old chap, you can remove consecending phrases such as 'let me explain this for you' without detriment to your flow and what's more I might then be more inclined to read your essays.

However you will be surprised to learn that it is actually you who have failed to understand me. When posting I find it quite valuable to digest the content which I am intending to discourse against and not to merely race off into whatever I was planning on saying regardless. I don't know if you've ever tried this radical approach, have you?

Do not fear though, I will not insult you by trying to explain it again. I am far too busy organising... now what was that incredible accusation you made against me? Oh yes, I remember it, apparently I throw senior citizens out on the street(!) Well I best be gettin back on with doing that then, hadn't I? :icon_smile:


----------



## Shaver

petro said:


> ......CRIMINALS ALREADY KNOW HOW TO GET AROUND THE LAW. Seriously. They do. That's how they get the label CRIMINAL.


Actually they acquire the label 'criminal' by being caught and then convicted.

Obvious when you think about it, really.


----------



## Bjorn

petro said:


> Sure it does.
> 
> Amazon doesn't wriggle out of anything. They don't *collect* taxes for the states they ship stuff to. There is a difference. If you don't understand the difference then we need to know that so we can evaluate your statements in that light.
> 
> Oh, yeah, you're English.
> 
> So let's explain this for you. In the US we do not (yet) have something like your VAT. We have "sales tax" which is not at the federal level, but at the *state* level. In general merchants in a state are required to collect tax on sales of citizens and residents (to include temporary residents) of that state. They are generally NOT required to collect tax on sales to out of state residents because those folks are supposed to pay the taxes themselves (generally) to THEIR state.
> 
> This is in part because each state is, well, a different state, and because each state has different laws about what is and isn't taxed, and there are also county and local taxes, which means that someone in Redding California would, in say 1993, have NO IDEA what someone in Stidham, OK should be paying in sales tax, and would have no idea who to remit it to, should they get a call on the phone.
> 
> Most states did not require "catalog purchases" coming in from out of state to collect taxes for their state. In general this was no great loss because the cost of enforcement would have exceeded the taxes collected, and it just wasn't very common, so most of what was getting bought was stuff that either wasn't available locally, or stuff that was too embarrassing to buy.
> 
> The thing is that like the Federal Government, city and state governments have been increasing their power, budgets, employees and rules and regulations and are just as power and money hungry. The housing crunch has devastated a lot of local and county governments (who rely on property taxes as well as sales taxes) and they perceive a LOT of purchasing shift from local to internet (which it has for lots of reasons). Folks don't like this generally (most folks only want bigger government in *certain* areas) and don't like paying additional taxes.
> 
> Amazon resisted becoming a tax collection arm of the state(s) as long as they could. They eventually gave in and will start collecting on one or two states soon. I suspect the rest will follow.
> 
> [quopte]*as example, horrifyingly, Starbucks do not pay tax in the UK despite the multi-billion £ turnover of their franchise here[qupte
> 
> Just so we're clear, this is the US election, and US tax law we're talking about. I have limited knowledge of UK tax law, but I'm pretty sure that Obama (and next year Romney) has limited (and at this point functionally negative) influence in that area.
> 
> I have no idea why Starbucks doesn't pay taxes in the UK, but I submit that it is much more likely a problem for your parliament than our President.


You're confusing sales tax with corporate income tax, which is what Shaver was talking about. You do realize there's a amazon.co.uk, no? Operating in the uk...

The issue in the UK is not customs and VAT...


----------



## Apatheticviews

petro said:


> There is a *federal* law on the books that requires an instant background check for any firearm sold through a dealer.
> 
> There are, in many states, already laws on the books requiring pistol (and in some states rifles) to go through a registered FFL, which triggers the background check.
> 
> It is also a felony to sell a firearm to someone you know is a prohibited person.
> 
> The problem is that once you've got those two cases covered--dealers have to run a federal (and often state) check, and it's illegal to sell to someone you KNOW is prohibited, each additional check becomes more intrusive and more expensive, and stops a smaller number of sales. Law of diminishing returns.
> 
> We aren't allowed to ask for *ID* to vote. You certainly can't ask for ID to buy a book, or to write one.
> 
> I think that the current mechanisms are a VERY reasonable balance of my right to keep AND BEAR arms, and the government's responsibility to structure things so individuals are protected.
> 
> There simply is *no* way to keep criminals from getting firearms. None. Cannot Be Done. There is little that can be done to keep firearms from someone who is insane but not yet under treatment. (BTW, the same laws about owning firearms apply to voting. May I please use my voter registration card to buy guns? After all the state is saying that I'm eligible to vote, which means I'm not a felon or certain kinds of insane).
> 
> But see, I did wake up, a long time ago and I know that those aren't the sorts of gun laws the idiot progressives are after. The left doesn't want some piddly little twitches in the process of getting a firearm. They want the so-called "assault weapons" ban back. They want all "concealable" pistols banned, and ultimately *all* private ownership of firearms, other than maybe .22 free pistols and fine Italian doubles banned.
> 
> This isn't me being paranoid, this what THEY HAVE SAID.
> 
> I *see* this here in Australia. I see what "common sense" gun laws have lead to. Like my house getting broken into at 3 in the morning and my wife assaulted (not sexually, just hit in teh face) by a 14 year old boy because there is NO FEAR of the resident. If you defend your property YOU go to jail. Like having to go through 2 weeks of paperwork and a 3 week wait just to get a piece of paper that gives you permission to show up at a club eevent and shoot SOMEONE ELSE'S gun. And a 6 month wait after that before you can apply for a pistol license. Heck, by the time I would have finished all the paperwork (Including the obligatory "we lost the paperwork...oh, hang on there it is in the other stack") my 2 year tour here would have been done (it's done in a month) and I'd have been headed back to the land of the free and the home of cheap dry cleaning (OB clothing content, getting a shirt cleaned and pressed here in the Outback is **$14** a shirt. Ouch).
> 
> I see over in England what "common sense" weapons laws lead to, like a guy who cuts the twine on paper bundles getting jail time for a utility/box knife. Like it being technically illegal to carry a box of kitchen knives home from the store. Like that poor farmer who shot some piece of human filth who broke into the farmers house WITH HIS BAIL RECEIPT STILL IN HIS POCKET and the farmer went to jail.
> 
> I'm going to type this slowing so it has time to sink in:
> 
> CRIMINALS ALREADY KNOW HOW TO GET AROUND THE LAW. Seriously. They do. That's how they get the label CRIMINAL.
> 
> If they are convicted felons, or have been adjudicated mentally incompetent and the state has seen fit to pass this data to the feds, then they will be denied when they go through a dealer.
> 
> If they are not going to a dealer, then you're not going to stop them. There will *always* be someone to sell them a gun. You can redirect a small number of sales through licensed FFLs at a minor added cost, but essentially criminals will either use a straw purchaser (already illegal, but you can't stop it) or they'll buy one on the black market, as they mostly do already.
> 
> I will grant you that the mentally insane are problematic. Guys like the dude who shot up the theatre in Denver and the dude who shot the congresswoman in Phoenix. Everyone in their life knew they were breaking down and losing it and NO ONE got them committed.
> 
> When family and culture break down laws cannot fix it.
> 
> The problem is that in our society being adjudicated mentally insane/incompetent really, really screws your life up (like schizophrenia doesn't already, no?). So both the folks with it, and their loved ones REALLY try to avoid that diagnosis. Even many doctors don't really want to have someone committed like that because it can make everything else so much harder.
> 
> He's a politician, and either (a) he's being asked about something he has very little passion or knowledge about (II) he knows that nothing the government can reasonably do will move the needle on this and that if he says that the hysteria from the Left and the Press (a very joined set) will be deafening or (3) both.


Go to the appropriate websites and look up the statistics on actual gun deaths in the USA. It's like 10th or 11th AFTER suicide. It's a SUBSET of homicide and doesn't even come close to Heart disease, motor vehicle accidents, regular accidents (falling off ladders or down stairs). Gun control would not actually do anything. It doesn't help anything BUT it would HURT a lot. If you look up the number of people that use a fire arms as a defensive weapon every year, the numbers are amazing. This is not to kill people, just to defend oneself (keep in mind you can use it as a deterrent as well).

I have personally sold thousands of firearms, as a legal gun dealer without incident to law abiding citizens. Should a law abiding citizen need one? No. Should a law abiding citizen be restricted from purchasing one? No. They come in fill out paperwork and go on their way. Criminals don't. If you restrict normal citizens you don't stop guns. You just make it harder for the people who would do things the legal way. Just look at DC (where it was illegal to have a handgun for years). It didn't prevent crime.


----------



## Apatheticviews

petro said:


> They generally DO pay the same rates (or higher) on the same types of income. Tax "shelters" are, generally speaking, GONE. There are lots of deductions out there, and folks DO pay different rates of tax on different types of income, but that's for social policy rather than tax maximisation reasons.
> 
> Let's just look at three different types of income:
> 
> 1) Regular income, as from workin for a livin or short term capital gains (gains on stuff held less than 2 years).
> 
> 2) Gains from sales of of long term assets (aka long term capital gains).
> 
> 3) Gains from "tax free municipal bonds".
> 
> Now, #1 we all understand and agree should be taxed at some rate. We understand this, and we can generally understand cost/benefit analysis based on raising these rates. At least I hope we do.
> 
> #2 and #3 are what get most people irate. To the extent that Buffet pays a lower *rate* than his secretary (although I think that was proven to be a "missunderstanding"[1] it's because he has a "invest and hold" philosophy making most of his gains "long term", and because he invests in tax free munis when he can.
> 
> This irks a LOT of people, but stop and think why these rules are there. The Long Term Capital Gains rule is in place to attempt get investors to think in longer horizons--to invest in companies with long term potential and to insist on good governance in those companies.
> 
> And those are the companies that hire the "average joe". You want the to focus on the long term and on stability and it's best if you encourage investors to do likewise.
> 
> So we can have an argument over getting rid of this sort of rule, but stop and think about what hte third and fourth order effects will be. Investing in even shorter horizons, more HFT, more "flipping" investements, and folks who's timelines are already pretty short and morals even shorter will have even less reason to invest in stability.
> 
> #3, tax free municipal bonds are a similar situation. In general cities can't pay high rates of returns on their bonds, but they need to be able to issue them from time to time for capital improvements (bridges, new schools etc.). These bonds often barely beat inflation (unless the progressives run the government, then they almost never beat inflation) and aren't attractive vehicles for savy investors.
> 
> Unless you make the the gains tax free. Then the become really attractive to investors who's primary interest is in a (relatively) safe income investment.
> 
> These investments weren't put there to make Buffet's tax rates lower, they were put there to encourage him to invest in America directly rather than whatever markets are hotter this year.
> 
> When you make fundamental changes to the tax code you have to stop and think about how those ramifications play out.
> 
> Just like when Reagan convinced Congress to fundamentally restructure the tax code in the early 80s and we went from the sort of tax shelters that got you a 40-60% savings on your taxes to a LOT fewer tax deductions that saved you very, very little we, after a couple of rough years, grew massively for almost 20-25 years.
> 
> Reagan had a degree in Economics. He had a general idea of what he was doing. Obama learned his economics at the feet of 60s progressives and jackasses like Rev. White. He has *no* idea how an economy works, and has damn little idea of what "work" is.
> 
> You just want senior citizens to lose income and get thrown out on the street.
> 
> That's because from where us Libertarians sit there's no so little difference and so much cross pollination between the two.
> 
> [1] Republicans lie. Democrats make mistakes.


Well said. I'd also like to add that "commodities" throw a monkey wrench into this as well. Not just oil, gold, etc, but, stock, and anything else that fluctuates in price because of "perceived" value.

When you have a company that produces something, it has a real value of (call it) $1B, and a perceived value of $2B because of what the market is doing. This can create stupid influxes of money that isn't really there. Facebook is a great example.

They set the starting price on the company (which doesn't actually produce anything), knowing full well that it would drop like a stone within the first couple weeks. When you start looking at things like this, you realize that the system is being "gamed." A gallon of gas doesn't take you any farther. Why does it cost 5x times as much as it did in 1990? We should be BETTER at producing it, not worse. It's not a rarity issue, it's a market manipulation issue.

When you realize that, you start seeing other products. Not just oil, but housing, corn, etc.


----------



## Jovan

I never said that I wanted to restrict law abiding citizens from purchasing guns... :icon_scratch:


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> I never said that I wanted to restrict law abiding citizens from purchasing guns... :icon_scratch:


Nah, didn't the impression that you did. Was merely expanding on the point.

There are more than enough existing gun laws already. As you said, they should be enforcing existing ones, before creating new ones.


----------



## Shaver

Apatheticviews said:


> Well said. I'd also like to add that "commodities" throw a monkey wrench into this as well. Not just oil, gold, etc, but, stock, and anything else that fluctuates in price because of "perceived" value.
> 
> When you have a company that produces something, it has a real value of (call it) $1B, and a perceived value of $2B because of what the market is doing. This can create stupid influxes of money that isn't really there. Facebook is a great example.
> 
> They set the starting price on the company (which doesn't actually produce anything), knowing full well that it would drop like a stone within the first couple weeks. When you start looking at things like this, you realize that the system is being "gamed." A gallon of gas doesn't take you any farther. Why does it cost 5x times as much as it did in 1990? We should be BETTER at producing it, not worse. It's not a rarity issue, it's a market manipulation issue.
> 
> When you realize that, you start seeing other products. Not just oil, but housing, corn, etc.


I concur. And why are the markets manipulated to such ultimately disastrous effect? Who gains from this scurrilous practice?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> I concur. And why are the markets manipulated to such ultimately disastrous effect? Who gains from this scurrilous practice?


If you research it, you'll find that the retail price follows the commodity price. The largest difference between the two represented by excise taxes of various sorts. The commodity prices are generally set by state owned oil companies usually acting in concert. The costs of refining oil (the "manufacturing") has decreased, but the cost of crude has increased, partly because of increased cost (the easy oil has been gotten) and partly due to the price-setting behavior of OPEC and others.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> If you research it, you'll find that the retail price follows the commodity price. The largest difference between the two represented by excise taxes of various sorts. The commodity prices are generally set by state owned oil companies usually acting in concert. The costs of refining oil (the "manufacturing") has decreased, but the cost of crude has increased, partly because of increased cost (the easy oil has been gotten) and partly due to the price-setting behavior of OPEC and others.


Hello Mike, this is a very broad and complex subject and I think we may both simply be speaking of a different area. Retail should normally follow commodity price, factored for manufacturing costs. As you say oil refinery may have improved but the sources are more difficult to access (deepwater horizon - BP shame on you!) perhaps netting out the costs. However the price per barrel continues to soar. I am thinking more of the other, less tangible, end of the economy where stock markets spume per futures, hedge funds, financial sleight of hand.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> Hello Mike, this is a very broad and complex subject and I think we may both simply be speaking of a different area. Retail should normally follow commodity price, factored for manufacturing costs. As you say oil refinery may have improved but the sources are more difficult to access (deepwater horizon - BP shame on you!) perhaps netting out the costs. However the price per barrel continues to soar. I am thinking more of the other, less tangible, end of the economy where stock markets spume per futures, hedge funds, financial sleight of hand.


Agreed, Shaver. The increasing price per barrel (crude) has overwhelmed the decreased cost of refining (though those costs have to absorb (and quite properly) spectacular enhancements in environmental standards.

There is nothing wrong with futures, hedge funds, etc. In theory they actually make the markets more efficient. In practice, they behave imperfectly like all markets. Since perfect information and rationality are unobtainable, we must settle for regulation to ensure maximum transparency. Do people try to take advantage in these markets by guile and deceit, sure -- same as in all markets. But most people in the financial industry are quite honest, and that includes investment bankers and those who work in the capital markets.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Agreed, Shaver. The increasing price per barrel (crude) has overwhelmed the decreased cost of refining (though those costs have to absorb (and quite properly) spectacular enhancements in environmental standards.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with futures, hedge funds, etc. In theory they actually make the markets more efficient. In practice, they behave imperfectly like all markets. Since perfect information and rationality are unobtainable, we must settle for regulation to ensure maximum transparency. Do people try to take advantage in these markets by guile and deceit, sure -- same as in all markets. But most people in the financial industry are quite honest, and that includes investment bankers and those who work in the capital markets.


I am tended to disagree with your view of the markets. Regulation rarely keeps apace with the latest devious trading wrangles, thus operations can be described as nominally legal but remain wholly immoral. Performance fees precipitate corrupt practices to satisfy short term financial gain for fund managers.

Forgive me if you have already seen the rather revealing document, linked to below:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?pagewanted=all

The overnight market is one of the worst examples of a souffle of lucre being baked. The net worth of the planet fluctuates in 12 hours simply based on an algorithm.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> I am tended to disagree with your view of the markets. Regulation rarely keeps apace with the latest devious trading wrangles, thus operations can be described as nominally legal but remain wholly immoral. Performance fees precipitate corrupt practices to satisfy short term financial gain for fund managers.
> 
> Forgive me if you have already seen the rather revealing document, linked to below:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> The overnight market is one of the worst examples of a souffle of lucre being baked. The net worth of the planet fluctuates in 12 hours simply based on an algorithm.


Oh yes, this article was widely circulated among friends and colleagues. And it sadly does conform to my experience. I would ask you to notice a couple things though. First, he does not cite a lack of regulation or need for additional regulation. Instead, he cites a degredation of morality, something that laws can only address in part. I have noticed this degredation in my profession too, and it probably reflects society generally. We are gradually transforming from a duty-oriented culture animated by self-restraint and consideration for others into a choice-oriented culture animated by personal appetites and perceived self-actualization. This is partly due to the decline of religion, which historically imposed shared values that were manifested in shared expectations of behavior. Not surprisingly, government has sought to step into the breach via enhanced regulation and more robust social programs. So far it is not working all that well, but then again few transformations work smoothly -- even those that end acceptably.

Second, I agree that the sophisticated financial products offered today are vulnerable to mischief, and certainly software programs are very imperfect substitutes for prudential judgment, though they certainly are intended to be superior and can be most of the time. But market fluctuations are not evidence of bad intent or bad behavior. In fact, market stability can be evidence of collusion against consumers, but of course not necessarily.

In any case I'm skeptical that additional regulations are likely to be very effective in countering bad behavior, but certainly some regulation is desireable. One must remember the law of unintended consequences. One reason that short term results are so valued is that compensation is tethered to financial results. This is a direct consequence of the effort of shareholder-rights groups trying to force executive comp to align with performance, which is sensible in principle of course. But rules and formulas often have consequences that are both undesired and undesirable.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Oh yes, this article was widely circulated among friends and colleagues. And it sadly does conform to my experience. I would ask you to notice a couple things though. First, he does not cite a lack of regulation or need for additional regulation. Instead, he cites a degredation of morality, something that laws can only address in part. I have noticed this degredation in my profession too, and it probably reflects society generally. We are gradually transforming from a duty-oriented culture animated by self-restraint and consideration for others into a choice-oriented culture animated by personal appetites and perceived self-actualization. This is partly due to the decline of religion, which historically imposed shared values that were manifested in shared expectations of behavior. Not surprisingly, government has sought to step into the breach via enhanced regulation and more robust social programs. So far it is not working all that well, but then again few transformations work smoothly -- even those that end acceptably.
> 
> Second, I agree that the sophisticated financial products offered today are vulnerable to mischief, and certainly software programs are very imperfect substitutes for prudential judgment, though they certainly are intended to be superior and can be most of the time. But market fluctuations are not evidence of bad intent or bad behavior. In fact, market stability can be evidence of collusion against consumers, but of course not necessarily.
> 
> In any case I'm skeptical that additional regulations are likely to be very effective in countering bad behavior, but certainly some regulation is desireable. One must remember the law of unintended consequences. One reason that short term results are so valued is that compensation is tethered to financial results. This is a direct consequence of the effort of shareholder-rights groups trying to force executive comp to align with performance, which is sensible in principle of course. But rules and formulas often have consequences that are both undesired and undesirable.


Mike, there's nothing I can dispute with here, indeed much of the sentiment I applaud. I didn't mean to imply that regulation was the solution, merely that it's inability to track policy keeps dishonesty on the periphery of legality. From the Temple money changers, via the Medici service of the Crusade, to the Scottish Widows original premium tables, then dark pool liquidity and beyond, the financial markets have evolved. What was once a reasonable profit made from a valuable service is now so much less than service and so much more than profit. I do not mind if men wish to be greedy but for Heaven's sake not to go so far as to utterly destroy civilisation in order to line their own pockets.


----------



## blairrob

Mike Petrik said:


> *I don't think history shows that tax cutting leads to diminished quality of life.* I think it depends on to what extent a citizenry desires public goods and private goods. Some people are willing to be taxed more for more parks -- others not. Everyone is willing to tax other people for more parks though.


It must to some degree; with the obvious caveat that each taxpayer would apportion the use of their givings differently it seems clear to me that with reduced revenues (at least in the short term) funding to something must decline (unless a significant effect of this is increased gov't productivity) and thus somewhere something that contributes to somebody's quality of life as they see it will be reduced or eliminated, whether that is public hospital funding, veterans pensions, or municipal funding.



Mike Petrik said:


> Oh yes, this article was widely circulated among friends and colleagues. And it sadly does conform to my experience. I would ask you to notice a couple things though. First, he does not cite a lack of regulation or need for additional regulation. Instead, he cites a degredation of morality, something that laws can only address in part. I have noticed this degredation in my profession too, and it probably reflects society generally. We are gradually transforming from a duty-oriented culture animated by self-restraint and consideration for others into a choice-oriented culture animated by personal appetites and perceived self-actualization. This is partly due to the decline of religion, which historically imposed shared values that were manifested in shared expectations of behavior. Not surprisingly, government has sought to step into the breach via enhanced regulation and more robust social programs. So far it is not working all that well, but then again few transformations work smoothly -- even those that end acceptably.
> 
> Second, I agree that the sophisticated financial products offered today are vulnerable to mischief, and certainly software programs are very imperfect substitutes for prudential judgment, though they certainly are intended to be superior and can be most of the time. But market fluctuations are not evidence of bad intent or bad behavior. In fact, market stability can be evidence of collusion against consumers, but of course not necessarily.
> 
> In any case I'm skeptical that additional regulations are likely to be very effective in countering bad behavior, but certainly some regulation is desireable. One must remember the law of unintended consequences. One reason that short term results are so valued is that compensation is tethered to financial results. This is a direct consequence of the effort of shareholder-rights groups trying to force executive comp to align with performance, which is sensible in principle of course. But rules and formulas often have consequences that are both undesired and undesirable.


An interesting perspective, I honestly appreciate you sharing it with us on a forum.

I suspect you would agree with me that, at least in general, North Amercian financial markets require better regulation as opposed to more; in fact I believe less regulation with more teeth and enforceable white collar crime laws with the financal resources behind the enforcers is the direction we must take to better ensure confidence remains (or is regained) in the markets. I was a banker for many years in a globally sized institution, mostly in Toronto, and the further I rose the more I worked with people I considered to be morally challenged, and too often, morally reprehensible. After a change in CEO to the man who had led our investment banking operations the culture shifted even more quickly to a short termed focus, higher ROA/ROI driven vision with employees and many customers the victims of the ever shorter range strategies.

The major drive towards 'quick hit' returns comes from the larger shareholders, which in general consist of mutual funds and pension funds whose clients are demanding unreasonable returns, partially because of never having experienced low interest rates and slow growth in their youth and as adults, and partially because of the much higher expectations of a 'comfortable' lifestyle which would have been untenable in the years of slower growth post WW2 but now seen as birthright. No doubt the decline of morality and as you say, religiosity, certainly contributes mightily to this seachange.

Like Mr. Smith in the op-ed article, I noticed the executive suite filling more and more with bright decent, hardworking people on the whole, often with Harvard MBA's, whose focus was so narrowed on quick profits they couldn't see or understand the moral implications of their work or the decisions they made, and it was mindblowing to me that such well trained, well educated, intelligent, and decent people could be so unaware or uncaring. Like Mr. Smith, it became apparent to me that I was no longer a fit in the industry, or the industry was no longer a fit for me. It was exhausting to work in an atmosphere so self-absorbed.

With the financial industry unwilling to temper it's own excesses it is obvious that proper regulatory enforcement is necessary to, in effect, save the industry from itself. It's a scary time to be an investor.


----------



## Apatheticviews

blairrob said:


> It must to some degree; with the obvious caveat that each taxpayer would apportion the use of their givings differently it seems clear to me that with reduced revenues (at least in the short term) funding to something must decline (unless a significant effect of this is increased gov't productivity) and thus somewhere something that contributes to somebody's quality of life as they see it will be reduced or eliminated, whether that is public hospital funding, veterans pensions, or municipal funding.


You're working under the assumption that government is efficient, or has the potential to be as efficient as a business.

Reduced taxes and in theory reduced revenue just means you cut things that shouldn't be there in the first place. Like national tea testers or the TSA. You get rid of the fluff. You get rid of the dairy cows at the US Naval academy, reduce the number of Marines that are cooks on active duty (serving on the line) , convert all government employees to a standard payscale vice 15 different ones. You force the government to weed out the inefficiencies like any other business before it actually hits the taxpayer, which in reality causes the deficit, because these 600 elected officials couldn't balance a check book.

We're talking big picture items, not local stuff. The state & local stuff is handled on different tiers and has different governments who are individually responsible if they can't handle their budgets.

I hate to make it sound so cut and dry, but for the most part it is.

The US won't ever have a balanced budget while we have "wold aid" (humanitarian operations and global defense), and we won't ever agree on what needs to be cut to reduce the deficit because the two party system has hit a stalemate, and not every state has term limits yet.


----------



## blairrob

Apatheticviews said:


> You're working under the assumption that government is efficient, or has the potential to be as efficient as a business.


Baloney. Neither is perfectly efficient, and as a business is in business not to deliver a service but to earn a profit, gov't orgs have an instant advantage unless required to return a profit. No developed country that I am aware of does not use a mixture of business and gov't orgs to deliver services and that is because better minds than yours and mine have yet to devise a way to effectively and efficently do so without such a combination. Western countries are littered with both failed or poorly run corporations _and_ gov't departments unable to meet the demands of their citizens as inefficiency, differing goals, greed, national security, and host of other factors affect the inputs and outputs of national services.


Apatheticviews said:


> Reduced taxes and in theory reduced revenue just means you cut things that shouldn't be there in the first place.


But it doesn't in reality because politics, human emotion, greed, and imperfect decision making are every where in the world. Veteran care and pensions are cut, or prisons and hospitals are managed by the lowest bidder, and things get cut that are very important to a nations well being while pork still gets added in to budget bills or defence bills just because they can do it and want to pad their goodwill for the next election.



Apatheticviews said:


> Like national tea testers or the TSA. You get rid of the fluff. You get rid of the dairy cows at the US Naval academy, reduce the number of Marines that are cooks on active duty (serving on the line) , convert all government employees to a standard payscale vice 15 different ones. You force the government to weed out the inefficiencies like any other business before it actually hits the taxpayer, which in reality causes the deficit, because these 600 elected officials couldn't balance a check book.
> 
> We're talking big picture items, not local stuff. The state & local stuff is handled on different tiers and has different governments who are individually responsible if they can't handle their budgets.


 I'm sure that is true in your country but in others smaller areas are often responsible for delivering their own healthcare, education, etc., and as income taxes are collected federally it can be very easy for the federals to decrease what it hands down to the local authorities in order to balance their own budget. To the taxpayer, it doesn't matter as they only have one pocket to pay out of.



Apatheticviews said:


> I hate to make it sound so cut and dry, but for the most part it is.


I hate to make it so cut and dry but it isn't, it is very complex as the needs and priorities of each citizen is different, and the issues to be tackled by any large organization over the long terms require planning, foresight, sifting through various opinions and philosophies, developing or adjusting structures to deliver the appropriate services and then executing the strategies. In my experience, the level of complexity involved in running a 300 person business is infinitely more complex than that of a ten person organization and running one effectively that had hundreds of thousands over the long terms is unfathomable, IMO.



Apatheticviews said:


> The US won't ever have a balanced budget while we have "wold aid" (humanitarian operations and global defense), and we won't ever agree on what needs to be cut to reduce the deficit because the two party system has hit a stalemate, and not every state has term limits yet.


As I see Amercian politics become more polarized I notice the same thing happening here in Canada. While we do not have the political gridlock you have the ideological gap here is nonetheless growing with tolerance of opposing views declining noticeably.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Governments don't actually have to meet customer (citizen) expectations though. Congress has an 8% approval rating here. You just have to appear better than the other option (Rep vs Dem).

If governments actually had to "turn a profit" they could expected to be efficient in some manner. They don't though. They only have to worry about being reelected. The problem with that is, "throwing enough money at the problem." We're throwing 2 BILLION DOLLARS at an election that pays 1.6 MILLION over 4 years. That's not including the free press these guys are just getting every time something else happens.

It's built in inefficiency.

But I digress.

I come from a laise faire school of government. I don't really believe in a whole lot of government services. The government shouldn't be a service provided (with a few exceptions). It should be a referee. Keep the playing field fair for everyone. Don't get me wrong, it's impossible not to provide some services like roads, national level lending (to states or other countries), emergency response services, and military. But... there's a whole lot that the government shouldn't be involved in.

The more tasks you have on your plate, the harder it is for you to accomplish those tasks. This is a fact. The more help you need. The more staff. The more overhead. The more revenue to support. Sooner or later it becomes overwhelming. When you have 400M people, sooner or later you have to choose what's really important, and what's not.

I'm not a Tea Party guy, but I get where they are coming from. I'm financially conservative (Reaganesque), and socially liberal, which means I end up looking at about 90% of my fellow Americans like they F'ing idiots three minutes into any political discourse. Not because they are, but because we stop talking facts, and we start talking "beliefs." It goes from politics to "religion" at that point. It's like the gun argument. It doesn't matter that you point out that it's an insignificant number compared to every other form or death in the US. It's a "scary" form of death that the media locks onto.


----------



## Shaver

blairrob said:


> Baloney. Neither is perfectly efficient, and as a business is in business not to deliver a service but to earn a profit, gov't orgs have an instant advantage unless required to return a profit........


Isn't delivering a service paramount to the ability of a business to generate profit? Financial trading excepted, obviously. How might a business gain profits without it's core activity being the provision of some product and/or service delivery?

Apologies in advance if I am failing to grasp some larger point.


----------



## blairrob

Shaver said:


> Isn't delivering a service paramount to the ability of a business to generate profit? Financial trading excepted, obviously. How might a business gain profits without it's core activity being the provision of some product and/or service delivery?
> 
> Apologies in advance if I am failing to grasp some larger point.


 Simply put, large public corporations and most large private consider the main function to generate a return. The easiest example would be GE under Jack Welch where the strategy was simple; be one of the two top players in whatever industry you competed (or be able to get there quickly), be it refrigerators, turbines, whatever, or dump it. Offering a service or product was the means to achieving his goal but the raison d'etre of the business was to generate a proper return. Obviously some businesses, particularly those privately held, may see themselves duty bound to continue on the course of the founder, or to employ and contribute to the citizens of a community, etc., but that is not the norm in large industry nor is it taught in business schools other than in discussions around corporate responsibility, which, at least in mine, were hotly debated.

Perhaps I worded my statement you quote rather poorly, but simply put, the means of achieving profits can easily be switched out for another, and often is, but the goal of achieving the profit always remains.


----------



## Shaver

blairrob said:


> Simply put, large public corporations and most large private consider the main function to generate a return. The easiest example would be GE under Jack Welch where the strategy was simple; be one of the two top players in whatever industry you competed (or be able to get there quickly), be it refrigerators, turbines, whatever, or dump it. Offering a service or product was the means to achieving his goal but the raison d'etre of the business was to generate a proper return. Obviously some businesses, particularly those privately held, may see themselves duty bound to continue on the course of the founder, or to employ and contribute to the citizens of a community, etc., but that is not the norm in large industry nor is it taught in business schools other than in discussions around corporate responsibility, which, at least in mine, were hotly debated.
> 
> Perhaps I worded my statement you quote rather poorly, but simply put, the means of achieving profits can easily be switched out for another, and often is, but the goal of achieving the profit always remains.


I am afraid that Jack Welch represents most, if not all, of what I despise about business. I am naive perhaps, but I believe in fairness and Mr Welch most assuredly does not. A gentleman who will lay off thousands to support his private jet is not the kind of man I woudl like to spend any time with - except perhaps to kick him squarely up the backside!


----------



## Apatheticviews

Generating a profit (payroll) is always the primary goal of business, which is accomplished via the production of a product or delivery of a service. If you don't deliver or produce, you can't generate. They are means to and ends. Without one, the other dies. This is in business.

In government, however, there is no need to keep a customer happy, because you do not need to generate profit. You are guaranteed it, because you can vote yourself additional revenue via taxation, or fees.


----------



## Balfour

Apatheticviews said:


> because you can vote yourself additional revenue via taxation, or fees.


Or, sadly, by unsustainable borrowing.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Balfour said:


> Or, sadly, by unsustainable borrowing.


Exactly.


----------



## blairrob

Shaver said:


> I am afraid that Jack Welch represents most, if not all, of what I despise about business. I am naive perhaps, but I believe in fairness and Mr Welch most assuredly does not. A gentleman who will lay off thousands to support his private jet is not the kind of man I woudl like to spend any time with - except perhaps to kick him squarely up the backside!


I wholeheartedly concur with your take on Mr. Welch's hubris and myopic view towards profit. He is of the breed that typically leads large enterprises these days and in some ways is one of the better of a bad lot; nonetheless I did appreciate the comeuppance he received after his retirement and am relieved his legacy is not what it was once expected to be. Most folks who achieve great plaudits or notoriety in life are neither as good nor as bad as their reputation and he seems to fit that profile.


----------

