LOL, you people can’t refute Yoshidad’s arguments and have to resort to extremes like the above or other distortions.
The poor people of today are brainwashed to the point of defending the rich that exploit them. If you call for more justice and equality, you’re a DIRTY COMMUNIST (die, die, die!). It’s black or white, you must either have a kindergarten government that tax you to death and wipe your butt, or you must fend for yourself and your family alone.

The funny thing is that most of these middle-class people who think of themselves as being strong, independent and invincible, and who loath any kind of government, are the ones that are one stroke, heart surgery, cancer or car crash away from living in the streets. Suddenly they have to face reality or go live in the basement of an unwilling relative or friend, if any.

The same applies to the “entrepreneurs” or “investors” that the brainwashed middle-class love so much. They defend “free markets” without “government intervention”, but decade after decade they screw up and have to beg the government to intervene and bail them out, ie, they keep the profits during the boom and pass the losses to the lower classes after the crash.

I just wanted to say one more thing:

Folks, listen to a song by Martina McBride Greatest Hits Track #3 – Independence Day. It helps me personally put thing back in a sane line of thought when facing the daily problems of life. Especially in a election year.

Have a good Day!

If you will do one thing for me , I would appriciate it.
You are (from your written comments) college education.

One thing that My dad (My Hero!) taught me at a very young age was three things in life.

1) Be Honest! with people even if the truth HURTS! THEM! (Fad in the 1980 called TUFF LOVE!)
2) Don’t Lie – Honesty (can’t spell) is the best policy!
3) If you have the ability to WORK! there are no execues not to be able to SURVICE WHAT LIFE THROWS AT YOU!

These three principle are the only ones that I have operated under in my short career of life! (53 yrs old)

As I have MATURED over my business careers (accountant, hired bankruptcy expert, oil&gas landman, oil & gas investments, Farmer ( not by choice for six years) but for the FAMILY!, let me tell you one thing!

You or anyone else in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(MAYBE RUSSIA, KOREA, ECT. ECT. ) CAN’T or WILL NOT TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD DO TO BE HAPPY, OR HOW TO TAKE CARE OF MY FAMILY! PERIOD!

IF YOU DECIDE (OR SOMEONE ELSE! MAYBE OBMANA)DECIDE TO “FORCE” THOSE ISSUES ON ME, COME ON DOWN AND TRY ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY DOWN HERE IN SOUTH TEXAS, BECAUSE THE 1ST FAMILY DOWN HERE IN 1913 FORWARD PUT UP WITH DROUGHT, HURRICANCES, FARM DISASTER, RANCHING DISASTER, MEXICAN BANIDOSI (PANCHO ) ECT. ECT. ECT. , BUT DO YOU KNOW? WE ARE STILL HERE!

AS FOR THE EVIL OIL & GAS BUSINESS THAT YOU COMMENTED ON ! YOU ARE THE TYPICIAL TRUST FUND BABY WHO HAS NEVER HAD WORK!!!!!!!!!!!! one day in their day in the whole life. Your grandfather , father did the hard work , you are sucking on the tits. good day.

AND YOU BETTER LISTEN REAL GOOD!

YOU BETTER HAVE A GODDAMM GOOD ARMY BEHIND YOU OR , NO, I GURANNTEED IT! YOU WILL BE BUZZARD BAIT!

Have Nice Day!

Peace & Love!

Life is to short for this crap!

Mesa Econoguy reminds us of the original post “If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we’d also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them — the Carter years — the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.”

If you overlook the way this avoids mentioning that lower-income people don’t pay more in taxes because they have been denied the money (remember, the fruits of recent productivity increases have gone to the rich, primarily), then this is another restatement of the canard that lowering tax rates increases collections. If that’s true, why have budget deficits increased under this regime? See the “laffer curve” debunk above and below, too.

Mark notes: “the truth is that the Laffer Curve is a mathematical fact.”

Yoshidad responds: No Mark, the *truth* is that 2+2=4 is a mathematical fact. Supply Side economics, on the other hand, of which the Laffer Curve is a part, is a crank theory that does not match reality — sort of the point of me posting here. Try this link: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/whos-laffering-.html for more about the Laffer curve.

The link is Krugman again, who concludes: “So everything you’ve heard about how revenues have boomed since the Bush tax cuts is wrong. What really happened was that revenue plunged, as a percent of GDP, in the early Bush years, then staged a partial, but only partial, recovery. And that recovery seems to have run its course. Yet on the basis of this experience, both Bush and his would-be Republican successors are proclaiming that tax cuts actually increase revenue.”

Naturally Krugman includes footnotes and links to sources of this assertion — unlike your mathematical certainty.

Bobby b doubts the cohesion of the nation state, or even a family is sustainable: “The only way I’m going to be [my biological brother's] Keeper is if I find a really big cage.” — My friend, I feel your pain. There are people — for me it’s in-laws — who really make you understand homicidal mania.

Nevertheless, punitive measures have been ineffectual in handling society’s detritus — the U.S. imprisons roughly ten times the number the Canadians do, but both countries have roughly similar crime rates. So since this punitive regime is not effective, what say we try something else, even if it treats bastards like your brother, or my in-laws compassionately?

And why, oh why do welfare queens, irresponsible brothers and in-laws get so much play here. Surely they are a gnat compared to the camel of corporate welfare! Can I get an “Amen!”?

Damon Gentry asks: “Please tell me where you got the idea that the ‘civil war thingy’ resulted in ‘majority rules’? Last I read, it was about slavery (masqueraded as States Rights) and the ability of states to secede. The fact is that the Union won the war by having a greater ability to wage war than did the Confederacy. It wasn’t because a ‘majority’ of voters decided the southern states couldn’t secede or own slaves. Also, our founding fathers crafted a document that insures the majority does not trample upon the rights of the minority. So, take that argument and toss it out the window. I for one, do not accept it.”

Yoshidad answers: I don’t say it resulted in majority rule. I say it was fought to confirm it. I got this sentiment from Abraham Lincoln, who famously said: ” My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” This is from a letter to Horace Greely you can see here: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm.

And what is the Union, if not majority rule? Without Union, those who disagree with the will of the majority could secede, and secede again until all that is left is tribal units. You’re correct in saying the Union was preserved because of the North’s willingness to use force to preserve it, but their justification was majority rule (and the majority voted to end slavery).

Anyway, as I said before, reasonable people can disagree about whether the nation state is a good thing, but setting that discussion aside, the decision about whether to pay income tax has already been made by the majority that rules. And bringing up the “majority” not trampling on the rights of the minority really doesn’t apply any way I see here, unless you believe that minority is the poor, oppressed rich folks who have profited so mightily from recent tax policy, and as far as I can tell, run just about everything, have received a whopping 457% raise while the majority’s real wages have remained flat.

Boy! If that’s oppression, where do I sign up?

Meanwhile, characterizing a nation as *only* an oppressor, not something advantageous, or a collective provider of infrastructure, or a dispenser of justice, or any of its positive aspects makes y’all such a bunch of “Gloomy Guses” … Try to think “Glass half *full*” for a little bit. You can nit-pick government for its idiocy — again, like shooting fish in a barrel — but the private sector is just as clueless. Why else would Dilbert be funny?

OK, I’ve answered many of your posts. I hope this has been as entertaining for you as it was for me. After all, I don’t often get to be this right — ask my wife (please!)…8^)

One final word about the insults. I don’t expect the medieval folks were happy when Galileo told them “No, the universe doesn’t revolve around the earth, the earth goes around the sun.” After generations of believing the elaborate superstition of the geocentric solar system with all its epicycles and quirks, being told they had been mislead wouldn’t have been popular. They put Galileo under house arrest. They burned some witches, etc.

But I would counsel you that as you treat me, that is how you treat yourselves. If you call me “idiot,” then that’s what you’re calling yourselves when you make a mistake like missing a turn driving. Let’s try to be kinder to everyone, shall we? We can disagree without being disagreeable. After all, you have to be with yourselves 24/7. I only read the insults occasionally, and even then I discount them as the natural reactions of the superstitious to science.

The bottom line: Even if I haven’t convinced you of anything else: be kinder to yourselves.

Perhaps Batra’s story is incomplete because it omits the “higher pie” of growth, but consumer demand is 70% of the U.S. economy, and since that demand is now subsiding we’ll see just whether the tax cuts for the rich produce growth or recessions, if they continue to be a hallmark of U.S. public policy.

I’m hoping you “conservatives” are right, believe it or not, because if you’re not, and we continue to believe the elaborate superstition of Supply-Side economics, keeping taxes on the wealthy low because they’re going to grow the pie, then the coming recession will be a lulu.

Batra’s story also explains how the decades of the ’50s and ’60s could have stellar economic performance despite very high marginal tax rates, and how the Clinton presidency’s economic policies didn’t spoil the Reagan/Bush economy, they improved on it. Again, both of these explanations are simply not available from Supply-Side (AKA “voodoo”) economics.

Batra would have to have a more elaborate story to include the magical effects of growth, I’ll give you that. But the growth of the 50s and 60s compares favorably to subsequent decades too — again, despite the supposed bad effect of higher taxes. Could voodoo economics just not fit the facts?

Morganovich then brings up the ’70′s:”then we got the 70′s. remember the seventies? no growth. massive inflation. horrid taxes? …the 80′s were a massive accomplishment coming out of that disaster. i grant you that too much was spent by the government, but the solution to that is cut spending, not raise taxes. congress’s refusal to push through any of reagan’s cuts was largely to blame there. and where did all the innovation come from that allowed clinton to preside over a boom?” –You see Clinton gets zero credit, it was the innovations of Reagan’s presidency that were responsible for the boom!

In truth, the problems in the U.S. economy in the 1970s had little to do with changes in taxes or spending — the 1973 recession and its aftermath occurred because U.S. oil production peaked in 1971, then the Arabs denied us oil in 1973. It was the first time in modern history that the U.S. couldn’t pump enough oil to produce itself out of a shortfall in world supply. The ensuing recession was the worst since the Great Depression, and occurred because oil prices basically quadrupled overnight. Think of it as a massive, regressive tax increase paid to the Arabs and oil companies, sort of like what we’re paying Exxon, the Arabs and other exporters now.

The price of oil in 1971 was $1.75/bbl, incidentally, and only 30% of domestic consumption was imports. Until recently, the peak of oil prices was in 1982 ($42 in 1982 dollars) when Paul Volcker began implementing his Fed policies that drove interest rates up to wring the inflation out of the economy. Currently, the U.S. imports roughly 70% of consumption at $140+/bbl.

This 1971 peak in U.S. domestic oil production is irreversable, says the petroleum lobby (the American Petroleum Institute) and folks like Daniel Yergin, whose think tank (Cambridge Energy Research Associates or CERA) is an industry-friendly one — no tree huggers there. Heck, Yergin is a fan of Reagan. Read his book “The Commanding Heights” that praises Reagan and Thatcher to the heavens.

The enviros simply want conservation (real conservatism) or to have something other than oil as a fuel, but there’s no real controversy about whether U.S. domestic production has entered an inexorable decline since the ’70s — even if we produce ANWR. CERA is a little more optimistic than the peakers about the world’s supply. On the other hand, here’s CERA’s scorecard v. the reality of peak oil, BTW: http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=146

In recovering from the stagflation ’70s, the resourceful U.S. economy eventually roughly halved its energy consumption per dollar of GDP. Between the lower energy demand because of conservation, and lingering stagflation, and because of an increased supply because Alaska’s North Slope came online as Ronnie Reagan stepped into office, energy prices subsided during Reagan’s presidency, providing an added boost to the economy unavailable in the ’70s.

Incidentally, we can dispute which inventions coalesced to increase productivity in the ’90′s (was it semi-conductors, fiber-optics, software, or network equipment, or…?), but I must admit it’s refreshing to hear that Morganovich acknowledges the government’s research had positive role in producing these things. However that role has been ongoing, not just in the 1980s to benefit the ’90s, though, so let’s give credit to previous administrations too…and enlightened government spending, generally. Yes, it is *possible* — even if it’s not always actual.

Meanwhile, crediting Ronald Reagan and his supply-siders with the “Morning in America” recovery of the 1980s is where we part company. The source of my information about this is Paul Krugman’s excellent book “Peddling Prosperity.” Krugman is a Clark-medal-winning economist who currently teaches at Princeton, and writes editorials in the NY Times, so his credentials are substantial, in contrast to many “supply-side” supporters (e.g. Jude Wanniski was a journalist who never submitted a thing to peer-reviewed economics journals, but was well-funded by wealthy people who profited from his theories). Supply side economics has fallen into such disfavor, BTW, that “conservatives” are taking some pains to deny it is at the root of current policy (see http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2007/09/mcardle-bush-no.html, for one example)

Krugman’s description of Reagan’s “Morning in America” economic recovery, elaborated in that book is this: It was an average business cycle recovery accompanies by flat capital investment and a big federal budget deficit. The statistics and footnotes are in the book. Read it, then get back to me. I’ve lent it to my “conservative” friends, and despite some initial reservations, they’ve been convinced Krugman is right too…. But don’t take my word for it.

So did lowering taxes on the wealthy produce some miraculous growth spurt, and a miraculously “higher pie”? No. It was an average business cycle recovery with flat capital investment, and a record federal budget deficit. An no, tax collections didn’t increase — the record-breaking deficit proved that, as do the multiple tax increases that followed the lowering of top brackets. These barely kept the government deficit in control — and it was record-breakingly large (more than all previous presidencies’ combined).

As Jason Epstein says: It was a “crackpot theory that led Ronald Reagan to believe that huge tax cuts in federal taxes would lead to federal surpluses, when the actual outcome proved to be a cumulative deficit of $3.5 trillion.” He continues: “The Laffer Curve was a hoax because its allure and effect were not increased productivity but a tax cut for the rich. Thus the Laffer Curve illustrates another phenomenon as old as civilization—or even older: the tendency for wolves to dress like sheep.”

I’ve mentioned it before, but it’s worth restating: David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director stated, on the record, that Supply Side economics was not a real theory, it was just a pretext for lowering those top brackets. From Wikipedia, where Stockman says: “‘I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate…. It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down.’ So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.” Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: “None of us really understands what’s going on with all these numbers,” which was used as the subtitle of the [source Atlantic Magazine] article.” (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman#Office_of_Management_and_Budget)

You may have seen Stockman in the news recently. He was being led away in handcuffs, indicted for securities fraud. This is so… Reagan! (Fact of interest: With the exception of the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration holds the record for the most indictments for malfeasance in office — 29. How many such indictments does the crooked, slick-willie Clinton administration have? Zero, none, bupkiss. I couldn’t make it up. See here:http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history)

The truth is that while taxes on the rich were lowered, revenues fell dramatically — so dramatically that Reagan signed eight such tax increases to deal with revenue shortfalls (what else?) and pay for his military buildup. These taxes included increases in FICA and the gas tax. All told, Reagan / Bush 41 quadrupled the doubly regressive social security taxes.

Morganovich returns to suggest some specific cuts. These are almost all inadequate or baloney. A few examples:

- “all earmarks – gone.” Sorry, Mr. Morganovich, I don’t know what you’re thinking. Earmarks are less than 2% of the federal budget. I said show me something *significant*, not something trivial.

Another example: “SS – private accounts” — Not only is this irrelevant to the deficit (the unfunded SS liability is not part of the budget calculation), it is not politically possible. On the “plus” side: it is intellectually dishonest. When Morganovic says “break up the current fund into accounts for those who have paid in to date.” — who is left to pay for current beneficiaries? Current SS taxes pay for the current beneficiaries’ benefits. If you’re going to privatize, where does the money come from for those private accounts and current beneficiaries too? Answer: Additional taxes collected by the government, then managed by Wall Street. That would be laughable if it weren’t the real proposal from privatizers.

From such intellectual dishonesty, there is no specific answer about where the private account money comes from, even from Bush when he proposed this, because it was such a political third rail. See this for the entire story with footnotes: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html

Another example: “lower taxes” — and this will lower spending… how?

Anyway, Morganovich’s proposals don’t do what he says pure and simple. He provides no significant about what to cut other than “freezing” the budget — unless inflation is 10% not even that would cut 10% from real spending unless the entire budget gets a cost-of-living increase.

Morganovich concludes with “government is a terrible provider of goods and services and a massive distorter of economies and disrupter of growth. the less they meddle, the better off everyone is in the long run.” — except for managing sophisticated research into fiber optics, apparently.

So, I’ll admit that sometimes what you say about government incompetence is true, Mr. Morganovich, but sometimes not. I would say that if you’re suggesting abandoning or defunding (Cut cut cut!) publicly-funded infrastructure the ultimate result is that you would be living in a cave, or someplace like Haiti or Madagascar. You may want that, but I’m guessing it’s not a politically viable position. Some of our posters want a Lexus, but ignore how useless it would be without a road to drive it on — I do not make this mistake.

Josh weighs in to ask “Yoshi are you saying minimum wage should be indexed to reflect the rate of CEO pay?”

Yoshidad answers: No Josh, I’m simply pointing out that real wages have been stagnant despite measurable productivity increases. The vast preponderance of the payoff for those real productivity increases has gone to the very tippy-top of the income pyramid (70% of the payoff went to the top 1% of earners, if memory serves). You can try reducing my arguments to absurdity, but the observation about increasing income inequality is really not controversial.

Ravi Batra adds that when wages don’t increase as much as productivity does, then overall demand suffers, unless you can induce people to borrow. When they run out of credit, then demand collapses — and this is one of the really scary aspects of the current sub-prime mortgage crisis (some banks are reported to have as many as 33% of their loans in default — *that* is scary! — and strangely reminiscent of the S&L bailout). This observation about aggregate demand is true, even if corporate profits may increase (they typically do), says Batra. (more later)

I completely agree.

Doug: “I admire what the country WAS, but not what it has BECOME, which is why I want a Second American Revolution to begin…. the Constitution was SUPPOSED to protect me from the likes of you; democracy does not.”

I’m ready to shoot the bastards who intend to steal even more of my money.

If you’re looking for me to try to poke holes in your pathetic reasoning behind legalized theft, you won’t get it, pal. Invoke all of the statistics and liberal gods you want in an attempt to impose your version of tyranny on me, but I ain’t biting. I want you and your other devious band of thieves to leave me alone, to get your hands out of my wallet. Better yet, I want you and your like-minded friends dead, or across some border, out of my hair. I don’t root for bad guys. TS if that hurts your sorry-ass feelings. I’ll weep for you, if that helps.

Who are YOU to lecture ME what is right or wrong with my economic aspirations? If I want to own an XBox, A Lexus, a 300 foot yacht, or a 737, and am willing to work for it, who the hell are you to tell me that I can’t have them? I’m sick of you and all of your regressive friends telling me how to lead my life. Unlike you, I celebrate other people’s financial successes and view them as a net positive for society. Wealthy people hire a lot of middle- and lower-class people. Poor people seldom go on hiring binges. Don’t bother to cite some stupid, Wikipedia-derived stat to justify your intentions. I know theft when I see it. Period.

As I think about it, we are both wrong about the Constitution: it DOES mention economics, but it only entered the scene in 1913 with the infernal 16th Amendment. It opened the doors to today’s tyranny. I firmly believe that the Founding Dads would have been appalled by it. It may as well have said “never mind … there are no rules anymore.” I cannot send a lousy $10.001k check to a family member now without having to tell the various governments what I did. My money, my business, my liberties, are no longer mine: they belong to The Government. In short, they’ve got me by the balls. It’s for this reason that I no longer celebrate the 4th of July. I admire what the country WAS, but not what it has BECOME, which is why I want a Second American Revolution to begin. You’ll get your socialist nirvana, and I’ll get my freedom.

I refuse to defend what is left of my liberties by countering your odd views of morality and fairness. You will never convince me of your views, and visa versa. My stance is simple: the Constitution was SUPPOSED to protect me from the likes of you; democracy does not. One gets the same results from either a street thug sticking a gun in my ribs and demanding my money versus governments doing the same. Except the latter requires paperwork.

I prefer brevity over your useless, long-winded rantings: “f*** you and f*** Norm Chomsky.” That quote is from my book, page 1. Look it up.