Believe it or not, I didn't choose "the worst"; I chose "bad".
Printable View
Believe it or not, I didn't choose "the worst"; I chose "bad".
Considering what portion of revenue is taxed for corporate (not to mention the actual true earnings that are taxed) no, it isn't a high tax regime. Even if one naively swallowed the marginal rate, it would still be far outside the zone at which the benefit is large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
It's already available in this and other threads. It's a pity that rather than trying to actually think it through, you go right for the sort of interpretation you *want* me to have for your strawman. What I clearly did not say is, "So, you're saying the proper response to a recession is even tighter spending and possibly higher taxes?" That was your fabrication...or perhaps it would be more accurate to call it an "extrapolation" as used by Whitehouse to support a bogus budget plan.Quote:
Well ok professor, what do we do in that situation? Since I, apparently, misunderstood your position, go ahead and lay it out for us all to see. Im very curious. You said we were on the right track with spending 'in control' afterall.
I'll break down my philosophy on it. It is long range, versus short sighted, so I doubt you will understand or appreciate it--considering our differing time horizons. (Hmmm, I like the idea of christening this the "Now" decade.)
Part 1: Leave the overall tax rate alone until the economy had recovered fully. Not a tax increase, not a decrease. We could see we were going into recession and tax revenue would fall--either eliminating the surplus or producing a deficit. (Pretty natural after long expansion.) For proper accounting, clearly the non-Social Security portion of expenditures were not in any sort of long term surplus, and were still in deficit, despite the Admin smokescreen. At any rate, not adding several hundred billion dollars a year in deficit would produce additional additional gains in each subsequent year (it's called "interest.") Reducing govt. borrowing would be a long term stimulus as well.
Part 2: Work on an actual R&D, targeted investment, and infrastructure based stimulus plan. (Again, long term, rather than "quick fix".) Do relief as necessary for segments of business/employees hammered by the recession. Focus on positioning the economy for the type of structure it will need later on. Use the stimulus to encourage investment in the targeted areas. Let the free market make use of the incentives. Get your economic growth where it will do the most long term good for the country.
Part 3: Serious reform of corporate governance, accounting, and regulation. Improved transparency and shareholder power would lead to more efficient use of capital, as well as encouraging investment by reluctant investors. (Instead, you have many of us still sitting on the sidelines with large cash positions, watching the market move sideways.) The big dive in the market came from *inefficient* use of capital. Too much money chasing dubious returns supported by fraudulent accounting, etc.
Recession is not of itself a horrible thing, rather a short term problem, not a catastrophe. Weak competitors get swept out when this happens. What matters is how does the economy right itself and how do we react. Does the recession help work out the fundamental problems for the next expansion? Or does the economy end up with more structural problems? Everything I see now suggests our structural problems have increased, rather than decreased. Part of that is failure to address the fundamental areas needed for long term growth. Part is poor fiscal management. Part is poor regulation and transparency. It is not the sort of enviroment that I want to make any long term investment in.
Is that even a complete sentence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Mature as always. ~:handball:Quote:
It is long range, versus short sighted, so I doubt you will understand or appreciate it
Ok, let's examine your plan:
So, part 1 of your stimulus plan is... 'do nothing'. Interesting. As a side note, it'd be amusing to hear you explain how reducing borrowing- which implies spending cuts- would be a stimulus.Quote:
Part 1: Leave the overall tax rate alone until the economy had recovered fully. Not a tax increase, not a decrease. We could see we were going into recession and tax revenue would fall--either eliminating the surplus or producing a deficit. (Pretty natural after long expansion.) For proper accounting, clearly the non-Social Security portion of expenditures were not in any sort of long term surplus, and were still in deficit, despite the Admin smokescreen. At any rate, not adding several hundred billion dollars a year in deficit would produce additional additional gains in each subsequent year (it's called "interest.") Reducing govt. borrowing would be a long term stimulus as well.
On to part 2:Ok, you want government to fund private R&D and then suggest expanding corporate and personal welfare for companies affected by the recession. Clearly, this is part of your "controlled spending" plan. ~:confused:Quote:
Part 2: Work on an actual R&D, targeted investment, and infrastructure based stimulus plan. (Again, long term, rather than "quick fix".) Do relief as necessary for segments of business/employees hammered by the recession. Focus on positioning the economy for the type of structure it will need later on. Use the stimulus to encourage investment in the targeted areas. Let the free market make use of the incentives. Get your economic growth where it will do the most long term good for the country.
How much spending would you advocate for infrastructure? Is $286 billion enough or do you want to spend more while you're controlling spending?
Next...Now you're attempting to explain how what businesses really need to take off is.... more regulation and red tape. Makes sense- I guess. ~:confused:Quote:
Part 3: Serious reform of corporate governance, accounting, and regulation. Improved transparency and shareholder power would lead to more efficient use of capital, as well as encouraging investment by reluctant investors. (Instead, you have many of us still sitting on the sidelines with large cash positions, watching the market move sideways.) The big dive in the market came from *inefficient* use of capital. Too much money chasing dubious returns supported by fraudulent accounting, etc.
Recession is not of itself a horrible thing, rather a short term problem, not a catastrophe. Weak competitors get swept out when this happens. What matters is how does the economy right itself and how do we react. Does the recession help work out the fundamental problems for the next expansion? Or does the economy end up with more structural problems? Everything I see now suggests our structural problems have increased, rather than decreased. Part of that is failure to address the fundamental areas needed for long term growth. Part is poor fiscal management. Part is poor regulation and transparency. It is not the sort of enviroment that I want to make any long term investment in.
Next, you go on to say how a recession "sweeps away" weak competitors, yet in 'part 2' you were claiming that the most affected companies would get help from the government. I'm sorry, but I think your economic plan is incoherent. It reminds me of John Kerry's- You want to control spending, reduce the deficit and at the same time increase R&D and infrastructure spending. "A chicken in every pot" is a decent campaign platform, but it's poor in practice.
Ok, Where Do I Start....
Brief Summary:
History: No real history of any actual management skill. Got into Yale cuz' of daddy, hell, got everything else because of his father. Snorted cocaine. Dodged the draft.
Personality: Rich boy pretending to be a cowboy. And get rid of that speech impediment.
Foreign Policy: Squandered foreign goodwill, made enemies out of everyone except for Britain (our lapdogs) and some small nations too terrified to protest.
Economy: It's growing, but we're still getting sodomized by the trade deficit with China and by the growing value of the Euro, not to mention that oil prices are going through the roof thanks to us.
War: Ok, Bush has to be the most pathetic military "leader" ever to take a U.S military force into battle. Totally mishandled Iraq, and Rummy seems to be too obsessed with the WoT to fund decent programs, you know just in case we actually get into a real war again.
Corruption: Hmm... cronie-ism, leaks, severe mishandling of contractors, inability to do anything about DeLay and Frist (they're in his party...), using our surplus to give his rich buddies kickbacks.... and the list goes on.
Intelligence: 9/11/01, enough said. Bush should be prosecuted for 2,752 murders , not to mention the fact that he hasn't grabbed Osama yet.
Yes, it is missing one comma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Like I figured, you wouldn't understand it. The approach to taxes was "first, do no harm."Quote:
Ok, let's examine your plan:
So, part 1 of your stimulus plan is... 'do nothing'. Interesting. As a side note, it'd be amusing to hear you explain how reducing borrowing- which implies spending cuts- would be a stimulus.
Reducing borrowing is not a "spending cut." ~:shock: Instead, like paying off your credit card balance or a loan, it reduces future expenses. Some of us actually pay off our loans ASAP, and we don't run a balance on our credit cards. ~:eek: Why? Because we don't like losing a portion of our income to interest payments.
Having the govt. compete for investment dollars is usually considered a negative on the economy...but this "new Dubya economics" craze seems to have forgotten that. I remember hearing that "deficits were good" coming from his camp.
Just because the GOP took a free money approach to everything doesn't mean I support the same. The corporate/personal welfare approach would better characterize *your/GOP* problem, not mine.Quote:
On to part 2:Ok, you want government to fund private R&D and then suggest expanding corporate and personal welfare for companies affected by the recession. Clearly, this is part of your "controlled spending" plan. ~:confused:
How much spending would you advocate for infrastructure? Is $286 billion enough or do you want to spend more while you're controlling spending?
However, infrastructure spending is a stimulus. Beats the heck out of tax breaks for upper income types. By the way, building things or investing in R&D by definition is not welfare. Is this another "compassionate conservative, tax & spend liberal, or socialized medicine" mischaracterization the GOP is planning to use? The masters of spin are at it again.
No, I would have been more interested in major initiatives in things like energy efficiency, etc. One doesn't have to fund private R&D directly, but structure incentives so that companies are encouraged to start thinking/investing long term rather than short (I know, "long term" is counter to your approach to business.) Selecting a few developing areas to actually take the lead would be a good start.
Rather than trying to send $100+ billion to the moon, try spending it on a Manhattan project for fusion research at home. You want the tech lead? That is how you get it. You set a high goal, with lots of technical hurdles, and you start working on it in earnest. You don't get or keep the lead by trying to run business as a cash cow with little reinvestment or research. That is the path to obsolescence.
I fail to see how more transparency and accountability would harm business. Nor do I see how it could cost us several trillion dollars or so like the bust did. Building bubbles like that because of poor transparency and accountability is downright harmful and destructive. Following your counter logic, we should abolish all rules and regulations. That would be an unmitigated disaster.Quote:
Next...Now you're attempting to explain how what businesses really need to take off is.... more regulation and red tape. Makes sense- I guess. ~:confused:
One would think one wouldn't have to make such rules...but then one looks at people like Cheney, who was using fraudulent accounting methods at Haliburton and got away with it. After that one realizes that reforms are necessary.
Either that or you can watch investment money sit on the sidelines or move to foreign markets. Neither are real boons to the U.S. economy. Fair rules don't hurt good companies.
So you don't believe in a free market that the strong survive? I said "where necessary." For you, I should know that I will have to spell out every little detail or you will spin some falsehoods around the missing parts. My focus would be on transition of industry sectors, rather than the standard GOP money giveway to companies. I would be more interested in retraining and such. It is going to be tough to make any blanket statements, because I believe more in industry-by-industry evaluation. Blanket giveways are inefficient.Quote:
Next, you go on to say how a recession "sweeps away" weak competitors, yet in 'part 2' you were claiming that the most affected companies would get help from the government. I'm sorry, but I think your economic plan is incoherent.
Funny, the first two at least were Clinton's approach, and were working.Quote:
It reminds me of John Kerry's- You want to control spending, reduce the deficit and at the same time increase R&D and infrastructure spending. "A chicken in every pot" is a decent campaign platform, but it's poor in practice.
Better than Dubya's "Magic Beanstalk" plan... Talk about poor in practice. The beanstalk never grew. Don't know much about Kerry's plan myself, sure wouldn't put any stake in your GOP characterization of it.
And what useful plan have you had? You buy into one of the most destructive economic plans in U.S. history.
I'm shocked there aren't more "Good" votes. Did all of the American super-conservatives run off to their secret treehouse BBS and stop voting here? Or are they becoming disillusioned with El Presidente?
i hear they're mostly posting elswhere.
Yes, we all heard about the private treehouse, as I said. (You must know the secret handshake ...)
A super-conservative would know that Bush is not a great conservative president -Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurmania
Kind of like Clinton was not a great liberial president.
Attempts at generalizations are just that.
Voted mediocre. But I cannot help liking him because he is such a horrible politician, most politicians are as slippery as a greased eel, cannot say that of Dubya. I find him sympathatic, but he is a bit lightweight given his position.
Bingo. I'm not wild about Bush either. I think had been doing well enough in foreign policy and the tax cuts are always good, but his non-defense spending has been pretty much out of control. Also, he's done a poor job in PR terms like explaining the progress in Iraq and staying on top of the intelligence "lies". Instead, he has let his critics define them unopposed. He's not great, but I'm still convinced he's better than John Kerry would have been- not that it says much. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
However, I agree with Beelzebub in that, historically, Bush will be judged almost entirely on Iraq. If it turns out well in the end he will be hailed- if not, he'll be scorned.
I think the evidence speaks for itself. I would have liked to seen significantly less wasteful entitlement spending and pork- but regardless, our economy is currently very strong with very low unemployment and the tax cuts played a significant role. You may call a growing economy "destructive" but I dont.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
That is from Claymore Securities, a prominent financial advising/economic research firm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claymore Securities, Inc.
Oh get real. That is the most biased twisted use of data I think I've ever seen. Congratulations. Posting something like that pretty much eliminates any intelligent conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You can however look at the total market cap now...which is still not what it was before Dubya's election...and draw an entirely different conclusion. Some of the comparisons would be just as silly as theirs. One that would not is that the growth rate has not really exceeded normal recovery growth rate. Looking at rise after the events that led to the drop in the market is pretty amusing--gives them zero stars for credibility.
We could add that a the time in question the NASDAQ was at about 40% of its peak...and that the DOW was still not looking great. It is also funny that they ignore the larger recesssion. Of course what would one expect from a securities firm? They were part of the bubble hype.
EDIT: Wish I had time to really rip into this. I would love to show you the comparisons with the previous recession, the Clinton years etc. Man, what a ripe, juicy target. What I would actually prefer is some people having enough judgement and common sense to read through the sort of drivel that Claymore wrote, and recognize what they are omitting, etc. without requiring detailed hours of proof. I hate wasting my time proving what is obvious to anyone who has actually waded through these numbers. Then again...I think longer term. If you don't try to analyze these sorts of programs with a longer time horizon, then you get erroneous results: also knowns as Dubyanomics.
Hint: if you want to understand this, look at GDP growth for the previous recession (and timing), look at GDP growth for this last rececession, also look at GDP growth during the Clinton term. Then try to see this phenomenal growth as a result of the cut. It isn't there. Put things into their perspective. Look at what happened to the market indices too...look at them before the bubble popped, and today. I've been through this before here. Yet you keep trucking out the same type of snippets, completely ignoring the full time frame.
Why can't people use their brains and actually weigh these things themselves, rather than accepting them because it "supports" their arguments? Whether or not you agree with something you should want to cross check it and test it before you adopt it.
The gap here between the long term view and the short is obvious...particularly trying to do a single year comparison. Xiahou, you only continue to reinforce that point.
Yes, I know how it upsets you to use actual data in your arguments. Rather than cite anything concrete use just spout jargon in a sad attempt to give yourself credibility. Afterall, if you can talk the talk, you might be right? Nevermind, the fact that you never reference anything outside of your own opinions to back up your claims. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
You're funny, you criticize them for being part of the "bubble hype", which implicity shows you believe the market was previously over-valued (or in a bubble) and then use the fact that it hasnt returned to "bubble" levels as proof positive that things arent as good as they were before the recession. Just keep setting up your own arguments and knocking them down.... ~:handball:Quote:
You can however look at the total market cap now...which is still not what it was before Dubya's election...and draw an entirely different conclusion. Some of the comparisons would be just as silly as theirs. One that would not is that the growth rate has not really exceeded normal recovery growth rate. Looking at rise after the events that led to the drop in the market is pretty amusing--gives them zero stars for credibility.
We could add that a the time in question the NASDAQ was at about 40% of its peak...and that the DOW was still not looking great. It is also funny that they ignore the larger recesssion. Of course what would one expect from a securities firm? They were part of the bubble hype.
That is 100% Xiahou bullshit and you know it. I do more to actually put up real numbers than anyone else I can think of at the moment. I don't just quote some clowns numbers and say, "see this proves it." I spell out the basis. Too many others (like you) quote some damned blog as if it was gospel without even understanding where the numbers come from or trying to cross check them. I have backed up my stuff with figures, I don't always have time to wade through everything to respond to the farcical garbage that some of you like to post as "fact."Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Why should I have to spend hours digging through info that I've worked through in the past? All to prove what I've already proven before. It's like Ground Hog Day for you...except you haven't learned anything from the previous iteration. I'm supposed to dig up all the numbers and do all this work, because you can't be bothered to. Then you can try to pick away at them. I despise that intellectually lazy approach you take. If you want to challenge me on interpretation of numbers, you are going to do a hell of a lot better than you have ever done in the past.
Considering they are for profit and the securities firms love the ideas of capital gains tax cuts, their motivation is quite clear. And yes they were part of the bubble. They also want to prevent regulation that favors the shareholder.Quote:
You're funny, you criticize them for being part of the "bubble hype", which implicity shows you believe the market was previously over-valued (or in a bubble) and then use the fact that it hasnt returned to "bubble" levels as proof positive that things arent as good as they were before the recession. Just keep setting up your own arguments and knocking them down.... ~:handball:
It's funny, you take pot shots at the periphery. There you are: twisting and turning, intentionally misstating what I have said (claiming the counter to it, which is really funny.) Why? Because you fear the truth when it sneaks out and doesn't match your artificial reality. "Quick, grab the shovel, bury it in manure again."
I'm not going to have much time for disputing all of this junk for awhile, so have fun.
so i take it you 2 vote mediocre and then say no more right?
WHY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dailymirror.jpg
Hellenes
Not in this thread- and not in many others I can think of in recent memory. Honestly, it's really tiresome... Most of the time your arguments amount to "Im right and don't have to prove it because 'I've worked it out before' and if you don't agree with me you either have an agenda, are stupid or lying." You put yourself in a convenient position to argue when your wisdom is already a forgone conclusion and above reproach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
And why should I provide information for things I've worked out countless times before? Oh, I forgot- it's because Im stupid and you're smart. Some really interesting debate we'd all have here if everyone just stated an opinion and said they're not going to substantiate it because they've "worked it out before". If its too much work for you to support your assertions Id suggest you keep them to yourself, as they dont contribute to productive debate.Quote:
Why should I have to spend hours digging through info that I've worked through in the past? All to prove what I've already proven before. It's like Ground Hog Day for you...except you haven't learned anything from the previous iteration.
Considering how you hate Bush and virtually everything he does, your motivations are clear. Therefore, let's dismiss everything you've said. :bow:Quote:
Considering they are for profit and the securities firms love the ideas of capital gains tax cuts, their motivation is quite clear. And yes they were part of the bubble. They also want to prevent regulation that favors the shareholder.
No, that's what your do- with the exception of your pot shots being blatant personal attacks.Quote:
It's funny, you take pot shots at the periphery. There you are: twisting and turning, intentionally misstating what I have said (claiming the counter to it, which is really funny.) Why? Because you fear the truth when it sneaks out and doesn't match your artificial reality. "Quick, grab the shovel, bury it in manure again."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
You're right about yourself, but I'll try anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest, in an ironically appropriate sentence.
The funny thing is you probably think that the economy was worse in 2004 than it was in 1996.Quote:
You can however look at the total market cap now...which is still not what it was before Dubya's election...and draw an entirely different conclusion. Blah, blah, blah...
As for Bush, I voted Good, only because he had the guts to do something about terrorism, though his 1) immigration 2) spending and 3) position on the AWB leave something to be desired. I think it would be more appropriate if there was another choice between 'good' and 'bestest', so 'good' wouldn't seem so good. If it weren't for the war, I'd label him mediocre, but he's not handled it well enough to be called 'very good', let alone 'bestest'.
Crazed Rabbit
Worst... President... Ever.
There are so many horrors out of this administration that it blows any other president out of contention. We've had bad presidents before, but they usually have some redeeming aspects. With Bush, there are none.
Terrorism: Came into office unconcerned about terrorism, but spent his first few NSC meetings discussing how to invade Iraq. Never had a cabinet meeting on terrorist threat before 9/11 despite pleading from counter-terrorism adviser and PDB's with titles like: "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US". Still hasn't caught Osama bin Ladin despite four years of "war on terror" and early "dead or alive" pronouncements. Due to failed Iraq policy, international experts agree terrorist recruitment way up. Terrorism expected to worsen as skills learned in Iraq are taken back home and used against regional governments.
Iraq: Managed to launch a preventive war on Iraq supposedly justified by the threat from Saddam's non-existent WMD stockpiles and programs. His administration put together a case for war by using stories from Iraqi exiles who were discredited and disbelieved by US intelligence. Continued to publicly use stories about uranium sales, Prague meetings, and aluminum tubes to sell the war... despite knowing that those stories had been discredited by US intelligence and experts. Decided to invade Iraq very early, possibly before his election, and then the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
Occupation: Managed to invade Iraq without any discernible plan for the occupation. Ignored five separate studies done by State Dept., CIA, and War College that layed out what needed to be done and accurately predicted the dangers. Instead thought that Iraqis would greet us with flowers, and that Ahmed Chalabi (a con-man who was last in Iraq in the 1950's) would have the political clout to put together a Jeffersonian Democracy overnight. Disbanded the Iraqi army and instituted a de-Baathification policy that guaranteed that Iraq would simultaneously be filled with angry armed Sunnis, and without anyone with technical governing experience. Didn't allocate enough forces to the mission to guard the borders, secure weapons depots, or maintain order. Turned Iraqi reconstruction over to private companies with no-bid contracts. Originally told American public that reconstruction would cost US a couple of billion dollars and that the rest would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenue. Basically completely wrong on everything involving occupation.
Tyranny: Has directly attacked the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus by asserting the president's right to detain US citizens (and non-citizens) as "enemy combatants" without charge or trial on the basis of the president's role as commander-in-chief during "wartime". Re-defined torture as pain equivalent to organ failure or death, thereby definning everything short of that as not-torture. Has actually lobbied for the CIA to be exempted from anti-torture statutes. Oversees a worldwide system of secret prisons. Violates international law by keeping prisoners from Red Cross oversight. Waterboarding. Gulags. Horrible blow to US image, prestige, and soul. Patriot Act. Now deputizing military to do domestic spying on US citizens.
Secrecy: Whenever possible has worked to lessen transparency in American government and to deny the American public the right to review documents that it is legally entitled to see.
Debt: Has embraced the Republican mantra of "Borrow and Spend", irresponsibly cutting upper-income taxes during wartime, and creating the conditions for a huge fiscal crisis in the coming years.
Climate Change: Despite massive evidence, scientific agreement, and worldwide concern, has chosen to completely ignore the climate change issue. Has planned for global climate change in the same way he planned for the occupation of Iraq: "What, me worry?"
New Orleans: Cronyism. Incompetence. Now forgetfulness and neglect.
Plague: We're currently the least prepared industrialized nation in case of a major flu pandemic. The geniuses in charge want to cut funding to the Centers for Disease Control.
Of course, there are many, many, other things that could be added to the list.
Hello,
It is inappropriate to judge the historical perspective of an individual whose Presidency has just completed or is still in process. Bush will be judged ultimately according to the choices made and their impact. To judge impact requires distance. Summery judgments are typically creatures of passion rather than prudence.