Posted: Friday, November 2, 2012 6:12 am | Updated: 7:49 pm, Sun Nov 4, 2012.
This election is about whether we build life boats for everyone, or build just a few for the wealthy job creators in hopes we will all be saved. Remember, we created the economy; it’s not part of nature; it should serve us all fairly or we should change it.
Harvey Stone
Scottsdale
Posted in Letters to the editor, Opinion, Elections letters on Friday, November 2, 2012 6:12 am. Updated: 7:49 pm. | Tags:
Current users sign in here.
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
JNelson posted at 9:23 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Harvey, Harvey, Harvey.......I regret to say that you have a very unreal view of our economy. Please look back to the beginning of our Republic when we had a tiny federal government, small state governments and the people had maximum freedom and liberty to employ their own talents to the degree they preferred and desired to build their own "lifeboats", a system which allowed the people of the USA to become the most productive, innovative and free population in the world and a place where citizens from all over the rest of the globe longed to come in order to realize their own dreams.
In the last several decades, however, we've become a country of massive federal and state government with tentacles in every aspect of our lives, ones which grow and grow each year demanding more of the fruits of the productive citizens, ones which increase their regulatory pages by the tens of thousands and ones which have borrowed and overspent the country to the brink of disaster.
Today, the burdens of attempting new business start-ups and even innovation is so difficult that people like Mr. Marcus, who with his partner built Home Depot from scratch, among others, say that they couldn't possibly repeat that feat today because of the obstructive and depressing effects government throws in the way. If you think we the people as individuals have "built" the existing economy, that is only true because we haven't been focused enough to elect politicians who would dismantle the over-burdensome giant of government which controls most of it to our detriment.
So, it isn't a matter of building lifeboats for everyone, or for only the rich, it is a matter of allowing everyone to build his own boat or raft or home on a hill without the government standing in his way. Obama would continue and in fact increase the government behemoth, expand government control and continue its reckless and disastrous fiscal mismanagement until nobody has a lifeboat at all.
I can't say that Romney will salvage all this because the Republican Party itself hasn't been a viable force in turning the pending disaster around, either, although at least it might provide a short period (4 or 8 years) of opportunity to do so with Romney at the helm. With Obama there, there would be no hope at all.
So, let's forget about building lifeboats and allow the people to forge their own futures and economy through their own talents and productive abilities instead of relying on a failing massive government policy to "provide" for all when that is absolutely impossible in the first place.
Rich posted at 9:49 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Harvey, Please, government isn't there to build lifeboats, that is the idea that has wrecked the economy and turned our future over to incompetents who are clueless, over spend into disaster, and seek to rule every phase of our lives. Government has to back off of 'lifeboats' and give us back the freedom we need to construct our own. Government has to stop 'protecting' us, and allow us to gamble with ways to make it better. Socialism cannot work in our system, it can only work if the best and brightest, not the most ambitious and arrogant are in control, and our system only gives us the latter.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:12 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Lifeboats are ONLY for the wealthy.
Only the top few percent in the country are really really really wealthy and so that small percentage of people is obviously superior because they are few and because they are so rich.
Obviously they are superior ... it's in their genes ... so they deserve to have a lifeboat.
There are lots and lots of poor people.
They breed faster than rabbitts.
They don't need a lifeboat.
Got too many of them now.
Besides, they can't afford to buy their own lifeboat and are whining for the " government " to save them. Why didnt' they work hard and save their money and buy their own frickin lifeboat? Goldarn leeches is what they are. Leeches.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 10:21 am on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
"Lifeboats for everybody" = works great in a Communist County but just in case, Mr. Stone, hasn't looked at any flag polls in his...."SCOTTSDALE" ...neighborhood, "OUR" Flag is ..........RED............WHITE AND BLUE...........NOT SOLID RED.
NOW THE COMMIE CHINESE PEOPLE'S ARMY PENSION FUND MAY OWN 40% OF AMERICA OR WHATEVER.....BUT THEY DON'T OWN ...100%...OF AMERICA YET.
PEOPLE LIKE MR. STONE OF SCOTTSDALE MAY CHANGE THAT NEXT WEEK AND GIVE OUR......"MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE" (watch the movie)....ANOTHER 4 YEARS TO..............COMPLETELY BANKRUPT....AMERICA....AND GIVE THE COMMIE CHINESE PEOPLE'S ARMY PENSION FUND....THE OTHER 60% OF AMERICA THAT THEY DON'T OWN NOW.
Cerulean posted at 12:17 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
JNelson, I agree, we do not live in a free market society. We live in a society dominated by corporate monopolies and the wealthy. Republicans are at the heart of that philosophical hierarchy - just look at Arizona.
Somehow, someway we need to reduce the influence of corporate money in the election process.
The citizens of Arizona have, on several occasions passed initiatives concerning “Clean Elections”. This conservative supreme court and the Goldwater Institute have destroyed those efforts.
JNelson posted at 1:36 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Cerulean.....while I agree with you that corporations and other massive private institutions have far too much influence, it is because of the venality of the political class that they do, not because of the evil nature of corporations themselves. After all, corporations (since they are composed of people after all), must follow the laws that exist and are looking out for their own best interests just as do people who vote for the politicians who promise them the most free stuff.
The solution is to eliminate the ability of the political class to pass laws favorable to any particular group or class which is what the original intent of the Constitution was. By legislating policies which have no authority under the Constitution, politicians (Congress) have been able to create the crony capitalism system we now are saddled with, added to which is the massive entitlement system now in place, neither of which are Constitutionally authorized, not even to mention such destructive policies like removing the dollar from the gold standard.
But even given that, consider the difference in your life where corporations can dictate policy as opposed to government. Can corporations jail you? NO. Can they tax you? No. Can they force you to buy particular commodities like health care insurance? No. Can they indoctrinate your children in public schools? No.
Just a few examples among many. By far the most unfavorable things in our lives come from too much government control, not corporate policies.
As for the election system, politicians could, with approval of the people, limit the process to just 3 or 4 months, force institutions which use public airwaves to carry campaign material free of charge to the viable candidates instead of forcing them to beg for tens of millions of dollars in order to compete, and slim down the voting process by simply requiring anyone who wishes to vote to produce a valid birth certificate on voting day at the polling places, plus allow voting over a span of a week rather than just one day. One final and over-riding rule on majority rule should be: passage of any legislation should require an "aye" vote of 1/2 of the eligible voters plus one, not just a majority of those who actually do vote. That would produce TRUE majority rule, not the thinly disguised product we now accept.
On the other hand, limits on what a person wants to say or print or write about candidates or issues are violations of one's right of free speech, be it an individual or a collection of individuals such as a union or corporation.
These are among my own ideas on how to reduce the ridiculous nature of the national political campaigns as they now exist and I'm sure you have others which could be implemented to make the whole process more practical, shorter and more attuned to what individuals actually want rather than what political parties present as the only options.
Bluepoet posted at 3:18 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Harvey,
There are no lifeboats...there are only boats that need more parts, than other boats. Some will not float, some float above the waves, and others must sink. Learn to tread water...
Your faith is misplaced...put your hope on a raft, and ride....otherwise, you'll just be another deck hand, working for the Man...
Protect Freedom=Lock Your Mind
Cerulean posted at 4:27 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
J, I personally like government controlled jails, and taxes. I wish we could get corporate/religious interests out of the schools but that will never happen. And, at this time in history, it is ok with me that everyone pay a share for the cost of healthcare. I am not crazy about the Republican mandate that we all buy insurance - that was the compromise.
I do think our founding fathers were elitist. That may be why the supreme court holds that corporate speech (as money) is part of the Constitution. But it is a twisted view and not the intent of the framers in any form.
JNelson posted at 4:45 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Cerulean....The question isn't who controls the jails but who can put you there. Government can and corporations cannot. Religious people can't either, unless they can get corrupt politicians to get the government to do it.....there we go, government again!
Why should you help me pay for my health care against your will, or I pay for yours against MY will? Would it be alright with you if I sent an agent to your house, confiscated your TV and stereo, had them sold to help pay for it? That is no different than having the government FORCE you to pay extra taxes to help pay for my health care. It amounts to confiscating assets which you might well want or need to spend elsewhere just to help me pay my medical bills. Is that fair?
You don't seem to think much of our Constitution, if I read your post correctly. Why do you think the Founders were "elitists" when the entire thrust of the Constitution is to preserve and protect as much individual freedom and liberty as possible while having the smallest government possible in place to do that job? Seems pretty far from elitism to me!
It isn't "elitism" which caused the SC to hold that corporate speech is free speech but an acknowledgement that corporations are made up of people and PEOPLE have free speech rights. The other course of action was to deny unions and union members their rights to free speech. Would you approve of that?
I don't want to be critical of you but frankly, I don't think you have a good grasp on the hows and whys our Constitution was drafted and approved by the original 13 states. It might do you good to read up on that, if you don't mind a suggestion.
Cerulean posted at 6:41 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
J - I do not want to see you sick and tattered, begging on your knees for relief from your abscessed tooth. I would gladly help you pay for your health care if you are in need. The problem was that too many people were visiting the emergency room for a flu shot and not paying for it. We were all paying too much for health care. We all need to do more to reduce the cost of healthcare.
As you have said, government is no better than those whom we elected to represent us. So it is not ‘government’ it is the electorate, partly. Mostly, corporations dictate government interests.
Rich posted at 10:33 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Cerulean,
Healthcare is dictated. Only science is permitted. Science is only a belief. We have no clue as to life, it could be we are born with our death predetermined. It could be God's will, or the coding in our genes. All healthcare could be simply in vain. It is fine to be a romantic. To take cosmic decisions in your hands and decide what is 'right' and 'wrong'. The problem is that reality defeats it every time. The 'government' has no business deciding whether we are romantics or realists, that's personal. And when they try to invade that, they are guaranteed failure. Absent thought police, there is no way it can work. Why don't you get together with your big buddy in the sky and do better?
DemocraticDad posted at 11:51 pm on Fri, Nov 2, 2012.
Thank you for the excellent letter Harvey Stone!
What most of the Neanderthals commenting in this thread don't understand is that "American Exceptionalism" is the public education system and safety nets that America has provided for its citizens, giving them the opportunity to rise to a higher socio-economic level. This not only benefits the individual, but benefits the entire country.
My father was a factory worker who didn't have a high school diploma. His son (me) went to Brooklyn College when it was tuition free if you had the grades to get in, and then went on to get a masters degree and become a teacher and school administrator. My son went to a state university and then on to get his MBA from Columbia University. At age 33, he is now a VP with General Electric earning over a quarter of a million dollars a year.
"American Exceptionalism" made this all possible. How, you ask? Because the parents of a factory worker (my grandparents) were supported by Social Security in their old age, not by my father the factory worker, as would have been the case in previous generations. This meant that the factory worker's son (me) could take advantage of the free college tuition that Brooklyn College offered, because he didn't have to go to work to help support multi-generations of the family. This, then, gave me the opportunity to become a teacher and school administrator, which offered a solid middle-class income. That income enabled me to buy a home in on of the top school districts in NY where my son was able to get an excellent education and get into the honors program at a top rated state university. I was able to pay for my son's undergraduate tuition because I didn't have to support my son's grandparents (my parents) in retirement. Social Security supported them. Medicare made their health needs affordable, and for the last two years of her life Medicaid paid for my mother's nursing home.
WIthout these "lifeboats", as Harvey Stone has so aptly calls them, both my son and I would probably have wound up being factory workers just like my father. Not only would we have lost out, but America would have to. Just think about the money that we have paid in taxes, and dollars we have put back into economy, that we could never have done as factory workers.
Now do you get it?
k33j88 posted at 5:05 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2012.
Constitutional republic, individual sovereignty, these are concepts foreign to the liberal mind. We have a choice this election cycle, more socialism, or free-market capitalism. Greece's debt is 185% of GDP and we are 106%. The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.
JNelson posted at 8:53 am on Sat, Nov 3, 2012.
Cerulean....I'm totally with you if you want to help me out with my health care expenses voluntarily. And I would help out some people myself voluntarily at times. As long as it is all voluntary, wonderful. But you didn't address the ethical question: Is it OK for me to send my personal agents to your home, confiscate assets of yours and sell them to pay for MY health care? That's what government does, only it passes laws to confiscate money from us. If you believe that I have a perfect right to do that, then I suppose it would be consistent for you to believe you could assign the task to government to do it, you know, by proxy. However, if I do NOT have such a right, how can I authorize anyone else to do it for me, government agents or not? One may not give authority to another to do something for which he has no authority himself, don't you agree? If I get 10 or 100 or 1 million of my neighbors to do it for me, does THAT number give me the ethical authority to rob you to pay for my health care? Think about it, please!
Finally, you are correct that people without their own health care coverage or the money to pay directly for their care over-run providers who are obliged by law to tend them. But that's the fault of people who believe others are entitled to it and have passed laws to enforce their belief, not because it is the natural order of things to force one person or business entity to involuntarily give away assets. That's a man-made order which violates an individual's rights to ownership of his own property.
So, if you voluntarily want to help me pay for my health care, OK by me, but if you want to FORCE me to surrender my assets because YOU think someone else is entitled to them, I resist you, just as you would and should resist my sending private agents (or government agents) to your door (or bank or employer) to confiscate your TV and stereo (or money) to help pay for my expenses.
Mike McClellan posted at 2:57 pm on Sat, Nov 3, 2012.
The game is rigged for the "job creators."
Who, by the way, don't necessarily create jobs when the so-called "job creators" have lower taxes.
As a Congressional Budget Office report showed. Until the Republicans had it removed from the record. The report showed no correlation between low taxes for the wealthiest and job creation in our country.
Second, as anyone who pays attention knows, as taxes have dropped, only the richest have benefitted. As any survey of the last 20 years will show, the percentage of our wealth held by the richest in our country has continued to grow, while the percentage of wealth held by the middle class has continued to shrink.
Between 1971 and 2009, income for the richest rose by 281 percent (adjusted for inflation), while the middle fifth's income grew by 25% (adjusted for inflation).
Even Ryan's Medicare plan is rigged for the "job creators" -- while they could afford expensive supplemental plans, the middle class Medicare recipient would be at the mercy of Ryan's voucher plan, which everyone who's studied it has concluded will add costs to the average medicare patient.
The sad thing is that it really doesn't make much difference who's running the show in D.C. -- the lobbyists for the job creators -- and vermin like Grover Norquist -- seem to wield the real power.
JNelson posted at 5:06 pm on Sat, Nov 3, 2012.
Mike.....how many people do you suppose get jobs from investments made by poor people? Where do you think most investment money comes from, the average working stiff middle class worker or the wealthy or at least the upper middle class who have been able to accrue some personal wealth?
People with money to invest want a return for taking the risk. If and when the possibility of the return is too low, they don't invest but look for other sources of return which might be smaller but much less risky.
When taxes on return on investment get too high, it becomes less worthwhile to take investment risks and people with money to invest look elsewhere to put their money....bonds, precious metals, etc. That's why lowering taxes most often causes an expansion of the job markets, among other things pro and con. It becomes more profitable to do than than it is to just sit on it or collect small interest amounts.
The main reason for stagnation of the middle class is the constant decline in the purchasing power of the dollar. What difference does it make what percentage of wealth increase exists for the wealthy if the middle class and poor also increase their own standard of living? When the dollar inflates, that destroys personal savings as it is an unseen "tax" on being thrifty. The rich are the ones who are able to take advantage of inflated dollars because they are able to borrow but repay with less valuable dollars. Poor and middle class people generally cannot do that and are stuck with their more-or-less fixed incomes, or incomes which don't rise as fast as inflation.
Here's a look at the record of the value of the dollar since 1794 when a dollar actually was a dollar.
By 1860, the 1794 dollar's purchasing power was reduced to $ .97. It remained at about that level and was still at $ .96 in 1900. After the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the purchasing power of the dollar began to slide quickly. By 1920 it was down to $ .39. By 1950 down to $ .33. By 1970 down to $ .20. By 1980 down to just 1/10 of the 1794 dollar at $ .10.
By 1990 only $ .06, by 2000 just $. 04 and falling.
In 1913 what could be purchased by a $20 bill had ballooned in cost at the end of 2011 to $467.49!!
That means it cost about 24 TIMES then to buy what one could purchase about 100 years earlier. (Above data from Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Inflation doesn't affect the wealthy much at all, as mentioned above, but it has a very direct and deleterious affect upon the poor and middle class who do not have the resources to take advantage of all the excess inflationary dollars thrust into the economy. That's what is so insidiously evil about constant federal deficit spending and the Fed Reservs tampering with interest rates and the money supply. Inflation is especially hardest on those on fixed incomes as the puny cost-of-living adjustments often made on pension income never begins to cover the actual costs of living.....thus forcing fixed income people to keep lowering their standard of living unless they have independent sources of additional income.
It hurts nobody if the wealthy become more wealthy so long as the rest of us keep pace with the costs of living and have the freedom to increase our own wealth and living standards. That has become more and more difficult to do as well with the huge growth in government and its overburdensome regulations.
In 1975 the Federal Code of Regulations contained 71,244 pages. At the end of 2011, it contained 169,301 pages of regulations. Does anyone seriously believe that our standard of living has improved dramatically in the last 17 years by adding 98,057 more pages of federal government regulations?
In the last 10 years, 38,000 pages were added to the Federal Code of Regulations. During Obama's first 3.5 years in office, 11,327 more pages were added and this doesn't even include the majority of regulations which must be added to complete ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, which have less than 25% of those needed written thus far.
The yearly cost to the private sector of compliance with Federal Code of Regulations at the end of 2002 was $1.7 TRILLION, according to the US Chamber of Commerce. Obama's addition of more than 11,000 pages has added an estimated cost of compliance of $126 BILLION. Does anyone really think these huge costs and regulatory impediments could IMPROVE the economy and provide opportunity to create more jobs?
I worked for other people for 55 years before retiring. Not once was I resentful that the owners of the businesses for which I worked were getting richer than I was. After all, I wouldn't even had been working in those specific jobs without their investments; why should I object if they got more out of it than I did? Nevertheless, I managed to keep improving my standard of living all of my life without getting or expecting a handout from anyone else much less resenting others for being better rewarded for their own efforts to get ahead.
The point of all this is, resenting those with money who put it up to make more money for themselves, and at the same time create the pool of investment money which allows borrowers to start businesses and/or improve existing businesses is a fool's game and representative of the mentality that the object of living is to force everyone to "get" as close to equal results regardless of effort or talent. That's what Western European nations have been striving for and look what it has gotten them.
One last think, Mike. Your assertion that when taxes are reduced, only the wealthy benefit, is completely wrong. Ask any working stiff if he wouldn't benefit if he could pay 15% or 20% less in taxes and he isn't at all likely to say: "Don't cut mine because if you do, only the wealthy people will benefit." Ask someone sometime and see what they tell you.
Cerulean posted at 8:08 pm on Sat, Nov 3, 2012.
To add to Mikes Congressional Budget Office Report, the Congressional Research Service produced a study as well. The study concludes that “since 1945 tax cuts have had no measurable impact on economic growth.”
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109509/gop-crs-drop-dead#
Not just that, but the Tax Policy Center, points out that Mitt Romney’s proposed tax cut benefits the rich at the expense of the middle class. (same article)
wdgnas posted at 7:25 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
jnelson: When taxes on return on investment get too high, it becomes less worthwhile to take investment risks and people with money to invest look elsewhere to put their money....bonds, precious metals, etc. That's why lowering taxes most often causes an expansion of the job markets, among other things pro and con. It becomes more profitable to do than than it is to just sit on it or collect small interest amounts.
how much more do the taxes need to be lowered before an expansion of the job markets occurs? and please, no long winded replies that do not answer the question. i can accept 'i don't know' for an answer.
JNelson posted at 9:10 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Wdgnas......sorry if longer posts strain your readiness to debate issues based upon facts but sometimes it isn't easy to encompass more complicated things into the usual sound-bite lengths most posters seem to prefer on forums like this.
Anyway, numerous studies have shown that the optimum total tax bite which produces the best overall economic results is around 22-23%. Today it is much higher than that because of the massive governments we must live under, from federal to local. Please research this yourself to confirm it.
But optimum tax rates aren't the only factor in a healthy economy. As I mentioned earlier, another major one is over-regulation. Making it more and more difficult to start a business, improve a business or expand a business cannot be helpful to economic growth, as I'm sure you can see.
Another big factor is an unstable falling dollar. When one cannot rely on the value of the dollar of tomorrow being equal to the dollar invested today, uncertainty sets in, impeding investment decisions. There are other factors as well, such as printing and spending excess faux dollars to finance budget deficits and manipulating interest rates by the FED, but these are the main ones.
Sorry if this is too long for you to find worth reading and considering.
JNelson posted at 9:14 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Cerulean....."tax cuts have no measurable impact on economic growth". Simply wrong. During Reagan's 8 years in office, tax rates were cut and the revenue to the US Treasury jumped from about $500 Billion per year to just under $1 Trillion. Same thing happened when JFK cut taxes and it happened again when W was president and the Bush tax cuts went into effect. One should note that the CBO makes analyses for Congress but they do so based upon the data and estimates given it by Congress, which is why their published results often are found to be incorrect later on. You know...garbage in, garbage out. This isn't to say it is always wrong but it often is.
sockratties posted at 11:04 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
We don’t need “lifeboats” if we work together to keep the ship from sinking. We elect politicians and expect them to do the job. When they get to Washington they have their own agenda and forget why we sent them.
History tends to blur for some of our commenters. We had the founders, who shaped our government via the U.S. Constitution, and our freedoms as in the Bill of Rights. They pretty much ignored commerce as they had already revolted against British mercantilism. While the U.S. was an early exporter of oil, mostly from Pennsylvania for kerosene, and grains for consumption in Europe, it wasn’t until the industrial revolution that big business became a factor.
Great achievements require leaders and it is they who get things done. Cornelius Vanderbilt (railroads), Andrew Carnegie (steel), J. D. Rockefeller (oil), J. P. Morgan (electricity & steel) were great industrialists following the Civil War. They were visionaries and often ruthless. Much of their success was through exploitation of the workers. There was almost no middle class except for merchants and agents. Many laws and restrictions on the books today are the result of abuses from those times. These industries have been the backbone of our country and the foundation of our wealth.
Until we have cooperation, compromise and agreement between political factions no “lifeboat” is going to save us. If we do find common ground and agreement we won’t need lifeboats.
Cerulean posted at 11:09 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
J – Are you certain that the revenue increase is attributable to tax cuts? Are you sure that the increase in revenue is not due to the Fed Reserve and/or stimulus spending?
Mike McClellan posted at 11:12 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
What's your source for these numbers, JNelson?
Here's what Reagan's economic advisor Bruce Bartlett wrote:
"The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.
"According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion. [The New York Times, Economix, 6/12/12]
"It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year.
"By contrast, after the 1982 and 1993 tax increases, growth was much more robust. Real G.D.P. rose 7.2 percent in 1984 and continued to rise at more than 3 percent a year for the balance of the 1980s.
"Real G.D.P. growth was 4.1 percent in 1994 despite widespread predictions by opponents of the 1993 tax increase that it would bring on another recession. Real growth averaged 4 percent for the balance of the 1990s. By contrast, real G.D.P. growth in the nonrecession years of the 2000s averaged just 2.7 percent a year -- barely above the postwar average. [The New York Times, Economix, 7/26/11]."
JNelson posted at 12:52 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Cerulean.....Yes, I'm sure. Do you believe it is just coincidence that government revenues increase when taxes are cut?
Are you familiar with the "broken window" theory of economics? Look it up for the answer to your stimulus question. Remember, government has no money of its own; it must take it from the private sector before it can spend any on a stimulus.
JNelson posted at 1:09 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Mike.....As I said previously, CBO reports must be taken with a grain of salt since they are dependent upon what data is given the CBO to process. Faulty data, incorrect results. Not always the case but unfortunately, politicians of both parties always want the CBO to give them favorable reports to support their own policies; hence, sometimes unreliable findings. All administrations do that and the Obama administration is no different.
Federal revenues increased greatly while W. was president. That is a fact. Lower tax rates weren't the ONLY reason but one of the major ones. Part of that was the high employment rate where more people are paying taxes. Since there also was a growing debt because of deficit spending, the only possible rational explanation is, the government spent more money than it took in. That doesn't mean the tax cuts played no part in creating more revenue in the end. It only means that the government couldn't control its wild spending and THAT is what caused the deficits. If you spend more money in your household than you take in through work and/or investments, it is inevitable that you'll run a budget deficit. Blaming that deficit on your failure to earn enough money to balance the excess spending is not something any logical person would do. Would you?
One may manipulate statistics in so many ways to prove his point to those without knowledge which is why the general public is most often confused about what to believe. But if you can describe for us just one major government ever in history which regularly spent more than it took in and by doing so produced a growing standard of living with freedom and liberty for its citizens, I wish you'd do so. Check out the list of countries rated by freedom in economic liberties and see which ones are at the top and which ones are way on down the list. The US used to rank near the top, but no longer. We are falling fast as government spending, borrowing and debt continues to grow. Look it up.
The final upshot of all this should be, what one earns and owns belongs to him first and foremost. The government doesn't own it first and therefore should be allowed to allot back to him only what politicians think he deserves to keep. That's the beauty of the limited federal government the Founders gave us, but which is denigrated as being "unfair" so often by the Left. And today, since the public won't hold government to the Constitution's provisions, we are in severe fiscal trouble and there is no way to tax ourselves out of it without destroying the economy altogether.
Mike McClellan posted at 2:42 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
So let's see your sources that prove your contention. Here's yet another that contradicts you claims:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/11/02/non-partisan-congressional-tax-report-debunks-core-conservative-economic-theory-gop-suppresses-study/
JNelson posted at 4:18 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Ok, Mike, let's look at some of what Forbes says.
"When Ronald Reagan entered office, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent. When he left office it was just 28 percent. Contrast that with George W. Bush who entered office with a top rate just under 40 percent and wrapped up his presidency with a top rate of 35 percent.
Could it be that cutting the top tax rate on the wealthy by a full 60 percent (Reagan result) is likely to have a far more dramatic impact on the economy than cutting the rate by a mere 12 percent (Bush result)? I mean, President Reagan certainly provided us with a pretty walloping bit of stimulus when cutting taxes on top earners by 60 percent, no?
Donald Marron, director of the Tax Policy Center, thinks that this is precisely why cutting taxes no longer does the job, telling David Leonhardt of the New York Times that when the top marginal rate was 70 percent of higher, as it was from 1940 to 1980, tax cuts could make a big difference. However, when the top rate is 35 percent, a tax cut packs much less economic punch.
This information could certainly lead you to the conclusion that the answer to our problem rests in a massive tax cut—something big enough to make a real difference.
However, there are a few lessons in this regard to be learned from the Reagan experiment.
While supply side economics may have been responsible for some very healthy economic growth, it came at the price of a substantially increased federal deficit. What many forget is that it was during the Reagan years that we went from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation as President Reagan was required to borrow heavily in order to make up for the income shortfall that resulted from so massive a tax cut."
____________________________________________
First, keep in mind that the discussion article is about lowering taxes for the upper income earners (the rich) and how it might affect the potential results to the economy by NOW lowering taxes on them, and not lowering taxes on the rest of us.
Quote: "President Reagan certainly provided us with a pretty walloping bit of stimulus when cutting taxes on top earners by 60 percent, no?" Apparently it is already conceded that the Reagan tax cuts DID provide a 'walloping bit of stimulus'.
Quote: "...cutting taxes (on top earners) no longer does the job, telling David Leonhardt of the New York Times that when the top marginal rate was 70 percent of higher, as it was from 1940 to 1980, tax cuts could make a big difference. However, when the top rate is 35 percent, a tax cut packs much less economic punch". Not that a tax cut won't make ANY economic punch, just not as dramatic a one as during Reagan's term.
Quote: "While supply side economics may have been responsible for some very healthy economic growth, it came at the price of a substantially increased federal deficit." Again, even though federal revenue usually increases via properly enacted tax cuts, if the government overspends, the benefits are reduced or eliminated. That ought to be plain to anyone. Budgets ought to be fashioned on the actual revenue at hand, not on borrowed or printed money.
Quote: "What many forget is that it was during the Reagan years that we went from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation as President Reagan was required to borrow heavily in order to make up for the income shortfall that resulted from so massive a tax cut." This is backwards thinking. It assumes that there is no way to avoid deficit spending when any logical thought process must tell you that is a fallacy. Again, the deficit and resultant borrowing was because of overspending, nothing else. Same as your own family budget requires either borrowing or budget spending reduction in order to stay solvent.
IMO, your argument and that of the Left always seems to assume that the huge deficit spending with its borrowing and printing of money is unavoidable and thus tax rates MUST be raised in order to finance it. My view is the opposite, that spending MUST be reduced to the amount of revenue that is obtained, and that goes for ALL LEVELS of government, not just the feds. Not following that recipe is what has brought us to the brink of fiscal disaster and there are no amounts of tax increases which can fix it now.
As I've mentioned many times before, just lowering taxes is not the sole answer either, although I'd wager you would have a difficult time finding anyone other than upper income earners turning one down because they see it as a personal benefit to them to keep more of their own income. There are other policies which would have to be included along with low tax rates in order to produce a growing and viable economy, like regulation reform, a sound dollar, elimination of manipulation of money supply and interest rates, etc.
So, the argument cannot be boiled down simply to whether or not tax rates should be lowered and if that is done the economy will explode upward. But just as an ethical matter, what is wrong with a policy which allows people to keep more of their own assets instead of taking more and more from them because the government refuses to act responsibly and keep its own budget under proper control?
As for answering questions give you, when are you going to provide us with that list of countries whose governments have continuously overspent its income but yet provided a healthy, free and prosperous economy for its citizens?
wdgnas posted at 6:46 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2012.
jnelson: the reason i do not like long winded replies, 'they never answer the question'.
by your logic: Is it OK for me to send my personal agents to your home, confiscate assets of yours and sell them to pay for bombs and bullets? That's what government does, only it passes laws to confiscate money from us.
JNelson posted at 9:01 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2012.
Wdgnas.....Could it be that you find it too difficult to properly digest the content of the more "long winded" replies, one must wonder? Anyway, my last post to you was about 25 lines long....too long for you, I guess.
To continue another "long" answer to your question: Congress has a Constitutional duty and authority to field defense forces; hence, an honest authority to collect taxes in order to fund that. However, many federal programs now in place have NO Constitutional authority; hence, no lawful authority to collect taxes to fund them. Now do you get it?
wdgnas posted at 7:39 am on Tue, Nov 6, 2012.
jnelson: finally a brief response. that partially answers the question.
where is the constitutional duty and authority that states 'the u.s. shall be one of the 3 largest weapons dealers'? the others being china and russia, and there order depends on what side of the bar you are on and how drunk you are.
JNelson posted at 8:38 am on Tue, Nov 6, 2012.
Wdgnas....Maybe if you ask a more focused question instead of a vague one, I could give you a more pointed answer. But then, if the answer requires more than a 3 or 4 line answer, would you find it too "long winded"? :-)
Anyway, I agree that the use of a Constitutional authority for Congress to provide for the defense of the country has been stretched all out of shape by making "defense" into mostly an offensive capability instead. DoD expenditures could be cut in half, IMO, and still provide adequate defense without endangering us. But at least there is the legitimate Constitutional provision for a defense, but where is it for entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, MedicAid and ObamaCare? Non-existent. Your comments?
wdgnas posted at 6:44 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.
jnelson: the preamble of the us constitution contains the wording
'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'
promote the general welfare, words left to interpretation. could mean to help any and all people no what their station in life. could mean let them eat cake. just because i don't drive on the street that your house is on, doesn't mean i shouldn't help pay to keep it in good condition.
i would agree with you that we do not need to spend as much on defense, while being one of the top 3 arms dealers. there are a lot of other programs that could be cut. helping people with social security, medicare and medicaid; programs that most of us have paid into, should not be cut. as for the affordable healthcare act, a gift to insurance companies, it would not be a burden on me to help others with their healthcare.
do you disagree with all parts of the affordable healthcare act, or just some of it?
JNelson posted at 9:57 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.
Wdgnas......I see that you, like many progressives and liberals, believe that the words of the Preamble to the Constitution actually constitute undefined authority given to the Congress of the federal government. If that were so, why then does the Constitution list DEFINED powers of authority to Congress in Article 1 Section 8? Does it make sense to you that the Founders would do that if they also intended to allow Congress to do whatever else it wanted under the Preamble?
Believing that is akin to believing that if I give you a recipe for a chocolate cake, the ingredients of which are strictly limited to flour, eggs, water, sugar, baking powder and bitter sweet chocolate, that you can freely add in broccoli, ham, vinegar and cornflakes and STILL have a chocolate cake, simply because I've written a preamble to baking in my cookbook which says my intent is to provide good tasty food?
I am totally against ObamaCare because there is no authority for Congress to enact it, nor for the Supreme Court to approve it, under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Any federal policy or program which does NOT have such authority is unConstitutional if the Constitution is to mean anything, and that goes for the Bill of Rights as well. If we don't stick to what is actually written and by what the words in it actually mean, then there really is no Constitution at all.
Compassion for others, good intentions, a willingness to share....all are or can be good things and that's why the Constitution leaves open the power of States to do those things, if they wish, or to add to or delete or from the Constitution to reflect the will of the people. That's why an insurance coverage purchase mandate is lawful in the State of Massachusetts but not lawful under the powers given to Congress.
All this doesn't mean there are no improvements which could and should be made in the delivery and affordability of private health care insurance coverage. There certainly are. But usurping power by the federal government isn't a lawful means of doing that.
wdgnas posted at 6:22 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.
jnelson: and i will respond once again, where in the constitution does it allow for congress to appropriate funds to build bombs and bullets to sell to other countries? not for our defense, but to sell to other countries.
i too believe it should be left up to the states. but sometimes the states need a little incentive. when the politicos (i use that term for both parties) are more interested in stuffing their own pockets then serving the their constituents, the constituents are the ones that suffer.
states have till the 11-15-12 to set up their exchanges or let the feds do it for them. since i have not heard anything about az setting up exchanges, i can only presume that the can has been kicked down the road so the feds will deal with it.
that way if it fails the states can say, see we told you so. but if it succeeds the states will be taken for credit.
it is obvious that i will not change your mind and you will not change my mind. thank you for voicing your opinions in a rational manner. normally i would have responded by paraphrasing a commenter, slabside: it is the law, get used to it.
absurdity1 posted at 10:32 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.
I will be sleeping in the life boats from now on
JNelson posted at 11:25 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.
Wdgnas.....I'm sorry to see that you haven't responded to the questions of the Constitutionality of various federal programs, such as ObamaCare. Is that purposefully or did you just forget? Also, you haven't responded to a challenge to the common liberal belief that the Preamble to the Constitution can provide authority for Congressional acts when the obvious inclusion of Article 1 Section 8 (defined powers of Congress) exists in the Constitution. I'd be interested in your views on these things as I believe they are crucial to understanding just what kind of country we are willing to have.
There are many things like this which deserve debate, IMHO, because through discussion the means to find direction exists, for good or ill, don't you think?
Anyway, I also appreciate being able to discuss something without the name-calling and other uncivil behavior found so often on forums like this. Thank you for that. We may not agree on anything, or perhaps we do agree on more than we now realize, but I agree with Dennis Prager's point of discussion: insist on clarity rather than insisting on agreement, because we're all entitled to our opinions but it is far better to be clear about how and why we hold them than it is to demand agreement with them.