I guess "aww, poor achebe" isn't an example of coming into a thread with sarcasm and belittleing ridicule? I agree with Achebe, that I have not really noticed much of a change. I am not saying that to be rude, either. ------------------ Squatting on old bones and excrement and rusty iron, in a white blaze of heat, a panorama of naked idiots stretches to the horizon. Complete silence-their speech centers are destroyed-except for the crackle of sparks and the popping of singed flesh as they apply electrodes up and down the spine. White smoke of burning flesh hangs in the motionless air. A group of children have tied an idiot to a post with barbed wire and built a fire between his legs and stand watching with bestial curiosity as the flames lick his thighs. His flesh jerks in the fire with insect agony.
Not always. Back in Amarillo, there was a tax rollback election forced on the County (Randall County, that is) when the county raised property tax rates in excess of 30% from the year before. The rollback passed (though not everyone voted for it. I don't remember the exact numbers, but over 40% voted against the rollback), and while most people took their rebate checks and kept them, a not-insignificant number of people signed their checks over to the county and returned them. I realize that it's a small number of the whole and that the phrase "most people will choose themselves over the system" is probably accurate. But I wouldn't say that people will always choose themselves over the system. ------------------
RichRocket, your point was entirely clear. A few of us happened to disagree with you, but for some reason you haven't acknowledged any of our points. This is as much of a habit around here w/ some posters as the subsequent cry of 'intolerance'. Oh yeah, that's the script: RichRocket, you're not being very tolerant to the beliefs of others. Now could you please tell me why none of my examples are pertinent? Could you please tell rimbaud why the inflationary concerns, hence recession wasn't really why many people argued against the tax cut. Your "points" are considerations that lost out the first time around. Economic forecasting is not a very exact science, is it? If this point was so valid, why is it on the outside lookin in? I don't have anything to add-- even in contradiction-- so I'll keep my mouth shut ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC TOPIC. Do you honestly think that before the tax cut when someone would argue from conviction, that they were being disingenuous? Or do you think you want to capture this beautiful moment where everybody gets a freebie, in a culture in which we're already encouraged to care more for ourselves than others, and optionally chooses whether or not to support the system's infrastructure or themselves? Give me a break. You are 1 guy I don't imagine as being a slave to this culture! When given the opportunity, especially in such a public forum as the challenge I cited, no one has had the gumption to live out their principles in this particular instance. Should I applaud these anonymous lip-flappers instead? Cease military spending increases, hell cut military spending... my point is still valid; get a tax cut, or a check in the mail and tell me something: donate or propagate? As BK pointed out (and others charged as well), these rebates had nothing to do spending decreases. It had everything to do with surplus money being returned to its owner. Since I hold no office, everything that comes out of my mouth is just an opinion. I thought that was reasonably understood. I assume that to be true for all of you likewise. Shall I start looking for the qualifier with every darn post?! I lost my King of the World crown.... ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
RichRocket: That's probably the most disingenuous contest I've ever heard of. The issue at hand isn't whether the Democrat believes that the money SHOULD go to government programs, but whether they're willing to sacrifice individual money knowing it won't make much of a difference... and that nobody else is going to be doing the same thing. It's very difficult to sacrifice money for your family when you know it's not going to make a huge difference. But if that's spread across the board so that it DOES make a huge difference... well, it's a lot more compelling. Pfft... how assinine. ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st.
Because inflation and recessions are usually mutually exclusive things (though we did see it in the late '70s, it's still rare). Also, since many Democrats speak as if they are Keynesian most of the time, it seems a little disingenuous that they'd abandon that economic philosophy in order to argue against a tax cut in a time when the economy is slowing down since tax cuts during slowdowns is exactly what Keynes would argue for (among other things). But that's just a possible reason why some of these people could be seen as being against a tax cut simply because the opposition was for it rather than because of some deep-seated belief. Since I don't know any of these people personally, I can't really say what they do or do not honestly think about anything. ------------------
mrpaige: Before addressing your argument, I want to ask a question: if one concedes that a tax cut may have been beneficial, does it necessarily follow that the size of that tax cut cannot be excessive and destructive? ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st.
How was Paris Mark? ------------------ This post contains no smilies, you must judge my seriousness on your own... Take notes fellas...
I heard a great many endorse the plan. The problem is that many economists that get their faces on TV or quoted in articles (on both sides of the issues) make statements based on their political beliefs as well as their economic beliefs. Many times, if the group making the economic decision that agrees with the particular economist is a person that the economist would not usually support, the economist will just keep his mouth shut and neither endorse nor distance from the plan. The fact that we don't hear them doesn't mean they're not there. We didn't hear from many Keynesian economists during the tax debate, yet they would be expected to support this action even though Keynesians and Republicans often don't get along. I'm not convinced personally that it has that much effect, either, though I support as low a tax rate as we can get since the government tends to simply get in the way and often makes things worse. I'm just saying that to dismiss an entire economic policy that the country has followed for decades and that has quite a bit of following in the economic community and is usually supported by many Democrats in Congress as "making no economic sense" is going a bit overboard. You and I may not agree with the policy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make economic sense to a great deal many economists. ------------------
haven: shanna's argument has no impact whatsoever. If 100% of our tax dollars had been returned and nothing "contributed" to the government, that would be problematic. But that's not the case. I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of government or taxation. Both are valid and absolutely necessary. The argument though is "to what extent?" Our rebate was a "small slice of the surplus" not the whole pie. That so few Democrats seem willing to give it back proves two things: 1. they have a use for the money, and 2. they are of the opinion that the government must have enough money already. How does that prove anything that shanna wants to assert? His point is only proven by making assumptions that do not reflect the true facts of this stunt. I don't disagree with shanna's point: government and taxation are here to stay, thank god, but we can't ignore or distort the facts to try and DISprove my point. shanna: It demonstrates that people won't give unless required, which is exactly the point the Democrats make. Do you really think that anyone would disagree with this? There is a super-abundance of taxation. This rebate returned a few coins out of that. There is a lot of wasterful spending. What can we do about that? ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these." [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 26, 2001).]
Actually, no. Not limiting spending to the growth of the federal receipts causes deficits. Tax cuts themselves do not as economic growth spurred by tax cuts will usually offset the cost. This is what happened in the '80s, the government chose to spend faster than the receipts were growing, though (I'm not a Keynesian, by the way). That's the theory, but we have yet to show that this works. There are two ways to spur economic growth: lowering taxes or increasing spending. The growth in the 80's was caused as much by cutting taxes as the government dumping $3 trillion into the economy through deficit spending. If the government cut spending along with the tax cuts, that kills jobs and works to stunt growth, so we have no idea whether there would have been net growth or not. The problem is that when the economy rebounded, no effort was made (by either party) to either raise taxes or cut spending. That's to be expected because no congressman wants to cut the various pork projects they rely on to get elected. This is why the theory doesn't work in our government. For that reason, I don't trust cutting tax cuts on the assumption that we'll take care of those deficits in the future -- we simply won't. Instead, we'll get saddled with debt and be throwing away money in interest payments, much of which simply goes to foreign governments or companies. Today, we're spending $200B -- more than Bush's entire tax cut -- per year in interest payments on that accumulated debt. If this policy would normally be the right answer, why oppose it because the President is supporting it for (what you would deem) the wrong reasons? I don't know if its the right answer, and I especially don't believe its the right answer if not accompanied by the necessary future tax raise, because I'm sure that won't happen. Does the money go to the right people and come from the right places? Given that Bush has demonstrated no logical reasoning behind the cuts, I have no reason to think the tax cuts are designed to spur growth either. He picked a number and stuck with it no matter what the economic circumstances. What reason do I have to believe that its the right size tax cut? Personally, I'm not opposed to a tax cut -- however, I do object to Bush's due to the size of it, because everything I have learned indicates that it will likely lead to deficits and cause more problems down the road. We're criticizing Bush for making the right decision despite doing so for the wrong reasons Even ignoring the size of the cut, Bush only has made half a right decision. Without the commitment to raise taxes in a strong economy (which I'd bet against), he's made an irresponsible decision. Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but I doubt it. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Also, haven, I think you mean "late '90s growth" when you talk about Mid-90s growth. The GDP growth in the mid'90s was nothing to write home about. We had two years of 2.7% growth in the mid-90s. I would also dispute the idea that we aren't going to see those sizes of growth rates (especially in real dollars as opposed to precentage growth) in the future. We've seen percentage growth rates that large all the time. We're not as likely to go as long without a recession (though that's what everybody kept saying in the early '90s in relation to the '80s when we racked up what was then the longest period of peacetime expansion in our Nation's history). We keep doing it again and again, so I'm not willing to rule anything out. If anything, I would say that we're more likely to see these growth rates again than we are to not see them. I would also note that the annual budget is never set in stone. If the Congress decides to raise taxes later or change other elements of the plan, they can (and will). The tax cut is more of a guideline than anything else beyond this year. ------------------
Three caveats: 1. I think the problem most people have with Bush's tax cut was it's size, and allocation. A very few people received almost all of the relief, and it really was more than the government could properly afford. The same complaints would not necessarily apply to *any* tax cut. 2. I don't know how we're ever going to determine who the "economic community" is endorsing. Evidently they're all either bias or just want their names in the papers . I do know that Bush's tax cut was irresponsibly designed. Hence, I would suppose that few could legitimately endorse it in exactly this form. 3. Cutting taxes, to a Keynsian economist, only makes sense if you're going to raise them at a later date. If you're not committed to this strategy, and Bush isn't, then it's probably destructive to pursue the first half. (ps, I meant late-mid 90's, but that's sort of a mouthful ). ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st. [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 26, 2001).]
BGM words cannot describe... But I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll start another one in a few days and post my diary. But I'll say this, as a musician, you owe it to yourself to get your butt over there and check out the music scene! ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
Actually, we did finally raise taxes in 1990, and it threw the economy into the toilet (and we ended up with even larger deficits, though most of that was caused by the S&L bailout. As a matter of fact, the deficits were falling in the late '80s, leading to the conclusion that, had the S&L disaster not happened, the budget could've been balanced with the lower taxes). And forget about cutting existing programs. Let's just cut the rate of growth of programs. Or stop adding new ones at the same rate. It was new spending that caused the deficits of the '80s. Tax receipts rose considerably during the time. There was no need to cut spending at all. Well, let's then wonder why Democrats who normally espouse Keynesian theories were against the tax cut when their economic beliefs would support the idea of a tax cut. If you don't even support the idea of cutting taxes in order to stimulate the economy then the argument doesn't work. I'm not sure that the tax cut was the right answer, either, but when people whose avowed economic beliefs oppose a tax cut simply because of the person who is proposing it, then that seems a bit disingenuous to me. And that was the original debate. Also, opposing the right thing now because the government might not do the right thing in the future seems a little weird to me, but I guess that's just me (you mentioned that in your post). I got the idea that you supported the idea of tax cuts as economic stimulus but just opposed (or questioned) the President's tax cut because of the way he arrived at supporting the idea of a tax cut. [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 26, 2001).]
Keynsian economics advocate balance. If you can't anticipate a future correction, then the initial tax cut is harmful in the long-term. It would still be beneficial short-term... but, well, you know the rest. ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st.
I think the problem that most people had with the tax cut is that they've been convinced that the government is better at spending their money than they are. And that they don't understand how the economy works or is supposed to work. Or, in my case, I think that interest rates have a bigger effect on the economy than tax policy, so I would've preferred the tax cut be used instead to pay down the debt and release some of that upward pressure on interest rates. In my opinion (which is not Keynesian), tax cuts of this size aren't big enough to do much to the economy. But that's letting political bias in. "I don't think Bush or the Congress will do the right thing in the future, so I'm opposing what I would normally suggest we do to stimulate the economy." But we'd never find out what the "economic community" really thinks about anything because they never agree on anything. There are too many different economic philosophies with conflicting views to ever have a true economic community opinion. But, we since we didn't see the Keynesians supporting even the idea of a tax cut when their philosophy would normally tell them that this is the exact time one was needed shows me that there is either a political bias on the part of the economists, or these economists weren't brought to the attention of the press in any significant numbers. It's not destructive in the first half to a Keynesian. They would argue for the right decision now and then argue to make the right decision in the future when it appeared that the right decision was not forthcoming, in their opinion. The fact that they don't believe right decisions will be made later doesn't change the fact that the right decision was being made now. By not supporting one side of the equation, how would they be any different than your characterization of President Bush? (Actually, shouldn't they be MORE hypocritical since their whole belief system is based on Keynesian economics. Bush is not a Keynesian, so he wouldn't be expected to support tax increases later. So it just happens that his policy and the Keynesian policy intersect, but only the Keynesians are hypocrites because they aren't supporting what their belief system says to support at this moment in time. Since Bush is not a Keynesian, he really wouldn't be hypocritical at all if he didn't later support tax increases when the economy is back on track). ------------------
I liked that book by the Kenyan Ngugi wa Thiongo... but I don't remember anything about tax cuts, just something about a party for thieves and critiques of neo-colonialism. <font size="-20" color="#f7f7f7"> [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited June 26, 2001).]
So they're willing to go against their entire belief system based on a political decision and their opinion of the President? Amazing. I guess we should never expect to hear from a Keynesian at all because during economic slowdowns, they are willing to betray their beliefs based on a political deicision and not support what their philosophy says to support. But during economic boom times, the Keynesians cannot support tax increases because of the uncertainty of whether the tax cuts will come during slowdowns (and even they themselves wouldn't support the tax cut during the slowdown). I'm glad we can finally close up shop on that economic philosophy. It's made itself irrelevant. They can't support their beliefs because of political reasons and opinions. Might as well stop teaching or following Keynesian theory at all. Someone tell Harvard and MIT they can shut down their economoics programs now (and I know we're all glad for that). ------------------ [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 26, 2001).]
Well, let's then wonder why Democrats who normally espouse Keynesian theories were against the tax cut when their economic beliefs would support the idea of a tax cut. I'm not sure who you are referring to here, but remember that Democrats also proposed a tax cut (albeit, again, for political reasons). I think most Democrats were simply opposed to the size of Bush's tax cut rather than a cut at all. Personally, I would prefer the #1 priority be maintaining a balanced budget and paying down the debt. This creates more money to be used in the future, making it possible to have a "free" tax cut. It also reduces the stress on the investment side of our economy allowing lower interest rates in the future. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
They proposed a cut later after opposing a cut for some time. When they were opposing the tax cut altogether, though, they were doing so in spite of their often stated economic beliefs. Also, I don't know that President Bush was espousing the tax cut based solely on political grounds. He's tried to paint himself as Reaganesque, he could've been supporting the tax cut because his economic philosophy (Supply-Side Economics, if he's atrue Reaganite. His father wasn't, so who knows. It's hard to tell whether this Bush really believes in anything) called for it. (As I mentioned) That's what I would've preferred, too, because I think that could have a larger and more long-term impact than a tax cut. ------------------
