2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Lemur]

as opposed to foreign indebtedness.

Oh, that's not accurate. Romney's budget plans, as proposed right now, would involve larger deficts than Obama. He's already committed to tax cuts, funded by debt, an increase in military spending, financed by debt, and has stated that he won't touch medicare, medicaid or SS. So whatever you're envisioning down the road, the immediate (say, at least a decade) impact will be a mssive increase in debt.

Remember, once Republicans hold office, deficits stop mattering. It's magic.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh, that's not accurate. Romney's budget plans, as proposed right now, would involve larger deficts than Obama. He's already committed to tax cuts, funded by debt, an increase in military spending, financed by debt, and has stated that he won't touch medicare, medicaid or SS. So whatever you're envisioning down the road, the immediate (say, at least a decade) impact will be a mssive increase in debt.

Remember, once Republicans hold office, deficits stop mattering. It's magic.

That depends on your outlook. Short term, their is no way to escape the debt. Long term, will the nation be better served through public or private investment? I would argue that sustainable public investment must be built on a strong private sector tax base.

[Lemur]

I would argue that sustainable public investment must be built on a strong private sector tax base.

That's not an argument, that's an obvious. The question is how to achieve that strong private sector.

I would argue if slashing taxes were the solution, we would know about it by now. The Bush Tax Cuts have had a decade to yield massive wealth to society, and have manifestly failed to do so. Moreover, we're at historic lows in marginal tax rates, and yet we're stuck in a very slow recovery.

Do businessmen complain about regulation and taxes? Constantly. Do they ever, under any circumstances, not complain about regulation and taxes? Nope. They're like Marines that way.

But when surveyed for what actually concerns them as businessmen, I believe demand wins the day by a long margin. (Don't tell CR I referenced a percentage again. He's traumatized.)

[Xiahou]

Besides which, what do you call a Republican who gets to write a budget? A Keynesian. What do you call a Republican who doesn't hold the keys to the treasury? A deficit hawk.

Hmm, didn't our current president run on fiscal responsibility? He called the $4trillion in debt under 8 years of Bush "un-American", while beating that number himself in half the time. He also promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term.... how's that going?

[Lemur]

Hmm, didn't our current president run on fiscal responsibility?

Yup, but we all know he's a wicked socialist who's channeling the undead spirit of Hugo Chavez as he prepares us for tyranny and other bad things, so what's your point?

Receipts have collapsed in the recession, the Bush Tax cuts have continued, so there's a marked imbalance in income to expenditures. But when it comes to new spending, President 44 has been remarkably restrained:



There's the socialist spending binge. Fear it!

Meanwhile, I seem to remember a recent president, can't place his name, who started two off-the-books wars with no intention of paying for them, signed a massive giveaway to pharma and the elderly with no intention of paying for it, and huge tax cuts with no intention of paying for them.

Deficit spending: IOKIYAR. And as I noted above, if Romney does anything resembling what he has promised on the campaign trail, deficit spending will explode (for real this time). But that will be okay, because Romney is not a wicked socialist.

[Lemur]

P.S.: Anyone who wants to break down Zakaria's argument should probably start here.

The United States is ranked 5th on the overall global competitiveness index, which is a weighted value reflecting scores assigned for 12 broad criteria presumed to affect “competitiveness,” [...] But on taxes and regulations, the U.S. ranks poorly. On the “Burden of Government Regulation,” the United States ranked 58th with a score of 3.4 on a scale from 0-to-7, slightly above the global average of 3.3. On the “Extent and Effect of Taxation,” the United States ranked 63rd out of 142 countries. On “Total Tax Rate, % Profits,” the United States came in 96th out of 142. On the issues that President Obama is pushing, the United States performs better than on those Romney advocates, which seriously weakens Zakaria’s argument.

The United States ranks 24th on quality of total infrastructure, better than on taxes and regulations. Likewise for “technological readiness” and “innovation.” “Higher education” (but not “job training”) generates bad scores for the United States, but clearly not for lack of spending. You can dig into the data here, and you’ll find that they tell a very different story than the one you may have read in yesterday’s Post.

Of course, Zakaria might still believe Obama has the stronger argument. But we should all be clear about the fact that regulations and taxes are real and growing problems, and that dismissing them as insignificant, even if inadvertent, doesn’t help policymakers find the solutions.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So, Lemur, when you finally post some facts they end up agreeing with me. I mean, it's like I summarized that without reading it:

A general ranking does not refute the fact that net regulations have been continually increasing.

Zakaria errs by citing the overall, weighted average U.S. rank of 5th to support his assertion that we already have a tax and regulatory structure that creates strong incentives for business to flourish. That relatively high ranking reflects a few obvious U.S. advantages—tax and regulatory structure not being among them.

CR

[Lemur]

So, Lemur, when you finally post some facts they end up agreeing with me.

"Finally post some facts"? Sheesh. You might want to dab the corners of your mouth, there's some smug dribbling down the edge.

I'm interested in reality, whether it reflects my preconceptions or not. I'm happy to post links and quotes from articles that argue in whatever direction, so long as they seem to be argued in good faith off good data.

Cato is a hyper-partisan source, but this article seemed to be well-founded.

Unlike Austrian Economics, I try to be grounded in empiricism. If reality shows something to be different from what I thought, I bow to reality.

-edit-

P.S.: I note that percentages don't make you break out in hives when they're from Cato. So maybe it's the kinds of percentages?

[PanzerJaeger]

That's not an argument, that's an obvious. The question is how to achieve that strong private sector.

I would argue if slashing taxes were the solution, we would know about it by now. The Bush Tax Cuts have had a decade to yield massive wealth to society, and have manifestly failed to do so. Moreover, we're at historic lows in marginal tax rates, and yet we're stuck in a very slow recovery.

Ack. I've refuted this same reductionist pop-economics line several times on this board already. => Bush cut taxes and the economy sucks, thus the Bush tax cuts failed.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that tax policy is only one factor among many that, taken together, dictate economic trends. Significant economic growth actually did follow the Bush tax cuts, and a strong argument could be made that they helped bolster the nation against the economic headwinds coming from the East. And, of course, the economic crisis had nothing to do with tax policy. It is very difficult to accurately gauge the effectiveness of tax rate changes with so much other data effecting economic performance.

So while the exact effect the Bush cuts had on the economy may never be known, what is known with more certainty, is that raising taxes during a period of economic distress - as the current president has been campaigning on - is generally a bad idea.

Anyone who wants to break down Zakaria's argument should probably start here.

And just for fun - I'm always reminded of this TNR blurb on Zakaria any time he is invoked in a serious discussion. The man is pseudo intellectualism embodied.

FAREED ZAKARIA
Fareed Zakaria is enormously important to an understanding of many things, because he provides a one-stop example of conventional thinking about them all. He is a barometer in a good suit, a creature of establishment consensus, an exemplary spokesman for the always-evolving middle. He was for the Iraq war when almost everybody was for it, criticized it when almost everybody criticized it, and now is an active member of the ubiquitous “declining American power” chorus. When Obama wanted to trust the Iranians, Zakaria agreed (“They May Not Want the Bomb,” was a story he did for Newsweek); and, when Obama learned different, Zakaria thought differently. There’s something suspicious about a thinker always so perfectly in tune with the moment. Most of Zakaria’s appeal is owed to the A-list aura that he likes to give off—“At the influential TED conference ...” began a recent piece in The New York Times. On his CNN show, he ingratiates himself to his high-powered guests. This mix of elitism and banality is unattractive. And so is this: “My friends all say I’m going to be Secretary of State,” Zakaria told New York magazine in 2003. “But I don’t see how that would be much different from the job I have now.” Zakaria later denied making those remarks.

[PanzerJaeger]

Trickle-down is the biggest load of crap the American people have ever bought into. We've followed it almost religiously since Reagan, and yet the wealth gap is bigger than it was before trickle-down theory became all the rage. Over a quarter of a century is more than enough time to declare it a stupid philosophy.

Sigh. Again, you're drawing a direct connection that does not exist. America's wealth gap is the result of changes in the economy, not tax policy. Just because something happened at the same time that something else was going on does not make the the two related.

[Major Robert Dump]

Hi guys,

Great debate,

But all these numbers and research are giving me a headache

Can we please just hyperbolize on some abortionz and school prayerz and the gayz? K?

[Greyblades]

Ugh all these conflicting viewpoints and biased sourcing, I'm starting to think no-one knows what the heck is going on or what to do.

[Major Robert Dump]

Thats what is so sad.

I cannot just look and see how much the President has spent without wading through 8 tons on feces, because everyone has a different formula. I realize that this is not uniquely american, but we take it to a level so low it cannot even be measured.

Never has info been so available to the uninformed masses, and never have people been so unwilling to do their own research, rather than listening to someone spoon feed them half truths. I am guilty of this as well.

[Greyblades]

Even then, there's no such thing as a truely unbiased source of information.

[Crazed Rabbit]

"Finally post some facts"? Sheesh. You might want to dab the corners of your mouth, there's some smug dribbling down the edge.

That would be the result of your snarky replies to my initial posts.

P.S.: I note that percentages don't make you break out in hives when they're from Cato. So maybe it's the kinds of percentages?

Or, you know, Cato has a lot less percentages.

CR

[SoFarSoGood]

A. The economy of the US is not falling, it's not rising at any reasonable rate to anyone's liking but it's not in a downward spiral like under Carter.

Sorry but that's bullsh*t. The US economy is shrinking and there's new taxes coming to make good the deficit, which will lead you back into recession by November. I predicted some time ago another bout 'quantitative easing' (fed buying Government debt) before November to ease Obamas campaign. I hope the fed doesn't fall for it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorry but that's bullsh*t. The US economy is shrinking and there's new taxes coming to make good the deficit, which will lead you back into recession by November. I predicted some time ago another bout 'quantitative easing' (fed buying Government debt) before November to ease Obamas campaign. I hope the fed doesn't fall for it.

Numbers please?

[Ironside]

Sorry but that's bullsh*t. The US economy is shrinking and there's new taxes coming to make good the deficit, which will lead you back into recession by November. I predicted some time ago another bout 'quantitative easing' (fed buying Government debt) before November to ease Obamas campaign. I hope the fed doesn't fall for it.

To be picky, US economy has been running with the lowest taxes since the 1950-ties most of the time Obama has been president (the stimulus packages contained tax cuts, on top of Bush's). So removal of Bush's tax cuts for the rich (that never paid for themself according from what I've seen when searching) is Obama chosing the best option in a problematic situation, while Romney's more tax cuts suggestion is on loony bin level.

Of couse, none of them got mandate to properly balance the budget within 4 years.

[Xiahou]

Yup, but we all know he's a wicked socialist who's channeling the undead spirit of Hugo Chavez as he prepares us for tyranny and other bad things, so what's your point?

That's the first indication that you can't defend the hypocrisy I've pointed out..... Painting the opposition as irrational while contributing nothing substantive. Let's see what else we have here....

Receipts have collapsed in the recession, the Bush Tax cuts have continued, so there's a marked imbalance in income to expenditures. But when it comes to new spending, President 44 has been remarkably restrained:

Ah yes, the widely debunked marketwatch chart. Just for fun, let's take it at face value.... My memory isn't always that great- but I'm pretty sure that Obama was aware that the economy was tanking while he was running for office and promising to halve the deficit. So, why would he say that when he knew tax receipts were falling? Was he lying or just stupid?

There's the socialist spending binge. Fear it!

More hyperbole...

Meanwhile, I seem to remember a recent president, can't place his name, who started two off-the-books wars with no intention of paying for them, signed a massive giveaway to pharma and the elderly with no intention of paying for it, and huge tax cuts with no intention of paying for them.

And he managed to do it all with less of that "un-American" deficit than Obama has seen under his single term.

In all, you've done nothing to refute my points. You hypocritically point out how Republicans came to power arguing for fiscal responsibility, while failing to live up to their promises once elected- while ignoring how the Democrats, including Obama, did that exact same thing.

[Lemur]

Or, you know, Cato has a lot less percentages.

The Cato article, like the Zakaria article, consisted entirely of percentages. But ... they were ... better percentages ...

The US economy is shrinking

ORLY?

Painting the opposition as irrational

I would go more with "dogmatic and monomaniacal," but what have you.

You hypocritically point out how Republicans came to power arguing for fiscal responsibility, while failing to live up to their promises once elected- while ignoring how the Democrats, including Obama, did that exact same thing.

Slight difference; Dems have not made deficits and smaller government their central plank, while it's all one hears about when Repubs are out of power. Emphasis, I'm sure you will agree, matters.

Also, the deficit under Obama has ballooned in the teeth of a recession and slow recovery, as opposed to the creative minds who gave us deficit spending in the midst of boom times. I appreciate your false equivalence, and admire it in an artistic sort of way. Can't wait for you to declare victory again. It makes me tingle.

[SoFarSoGood]

Numbers please?

January 1st new taxes start estimated to raise $494bn per year. Unemployment predicted to rise.... Obamas Keynesian stimulus is wearing off but you still have to pay for it. Hell the UK now borrow cheaper than the US and the $ is world currency reserve.

[a completely inoffensive name]

January 1st new taxes start estimated to raise $494bn per year. Unemployment predicted to rise.... Obamas Keynesian stimulus is wearing off but you still have to pay for it. Hell the UK now borrow cheaper than the US and the $ is world currency reserve.

I meant about the economy shrinking, which Lemur already pointed out....you are full of it.

[Lemur]

January 1st new taxes start estimated to raise $494bn per year. Unemployment predicted to rise.

You're referring to the so-called fiscal cliff. I don't think anyone plans to let the worst-case occur; why are you treating it as a certainty? (And as ACIN said, I was responding to your notion that the US economy is shrinking. Which by any rational measure, it isn't.

If you want to argue that the economy is shrinking and politicians are going to commit mass suicide by allowing all tax cuts to expire, please make your case. You'll note the orgiastic abandon with which we toss around links and numbers and graphs and things. Join the fun!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You're referring to the so-called fiscal cliff. I don't think anyone plans to let the worst-case occur; why are you treating it as a certainty? (And as ACIN said, I was responding to your notion that the US economy is shrinking. Which by any rational measure, it isn't.

If you want to argue that the economy is shrinking and politicians are going to commit mass suicide by allowing all tax cuts to expire, please make your case. You'll note the orgiastic abandon with which we toss around links and numbers and graphs and things. Join the fun!

I miss the old days when our backroomers skipped evidence entirely and relied soley on passion and invective in their efforts to not convince anyone of anything....

On a more serious note.

I loathe the growth of government and the growth of the deficit, but it would be a little difficult to argue that the current or previous occupants of the oval have done much to curb spending. Clinton working with the GOP congress did so -- and with a carefully negotiated agenda of agreements done sub-rosa despite public diatribes and verbal abuse. The last two admins have featured divisiveness not seen since Harding and the Teapot Dome or Jefferson v Adams -- and little is getting done at all. I know gridlock is supposed to be a feature of our government, but this is a bit much.

As to the elections, I did appreciate the dash of class BOTH major candidates used following Friday's mass murder. Living in Florida as I do, it has been wonderful to NOT have to listen to 37 political hate ads per day for the last day or so -- I never quite understood how annoying they get until I moved to a state that is perennially a "battleground." I suppose it will go back to where it was in a couple of days, at least for those of us not in CO, but it has been nice.

[Lemur]

OMG I love bad political music SO FREAKING MUCH. This is the best thing I've seen since Hillary 4 U and Me. Gets epic at 0:36.

[Hooahguy]

That was so bad its good.

I think Im going to make it my ringtone.

[Major Robert Dump]

Whats funny is the ambiguous title, or perhaps this is satire...??

But yes, if Mitt Romney is a Hero to anyone, it is certainly only in their mind. I can think of a lot of things to call him or our current President, and hero is not amongst the words

[Lemur]

perhaps this is satire...??

Nah, it's legit, I browsed the guy's video uploads. He's a kook, not a comedian.

I prefer unintentional humor; it's usually funnier. (And lawd above, I do love bad political music, can't help myself.)

[Major Robert Dump]

Then surely you loved this. In fact, I probably found this here to begin with, but there's nothing wrong with some good music Necro

[Lemur]

Oh, I love that one. Brilliant stuff.

I've been looking for a definitively bad Occupy Whatever song, but it has not been easy. Most of the stuff uploaded is just dumb and preachy without transcending into Wonderfully Awful. I'll keep looking.

There's always Hillary 4 U and Me, though. Instant classic.