quade 4 #1 September 16, 2003 http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/16/elec04.prez.clark/index.html Finally, somebody that gets it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 September 16, 2003 He hasn't announced it yet, and he has no platform. I don't dislike him, but I've heard no answers from him. I saw nearly all of his consultation on CNN during major military operations in Iraq, and in the end, he can't admit that the campaign worked. I want to know more, but I have no expectations.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 September 16, 2003 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html Quote Just as we were going to press, Wes Clark spokesman Mark Fabiani told the Associated Press, "He's made his decision and will announce it tomorrow in Little Rock." It's a pretty safe bet he's running. Gentlemen, we have a horse race!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #4 September 16, 2003 Great. He is for tax increases and affirmative action. Any other reasons I shouldn't like him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 September 16, 2003 Ya know, a tax increase now, what with GWB asking for $87,000,000,000 to fund the current war in Iraq, does make a bit of sense. BTW, that works out to just about $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States. You can either pay for this war now or pay for it later, but either way ya gotta pay for it -- unless you're thinking the way GWB is thinking, then you give a tax cut now and let other people's children pay for it later.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #6 September 16, 2003 QuoteYa know, a tax increase now, what with GWB asking for $87,000,000,000 to fund the current war in Iraq, does make a bit of sense. You can either pay for this war now or pay for it later, but either way ya gotta pay for it -- unless you're thinking the way GWB is thinking, then you give a tax cut now and let other people's children pay for it later. That is a good point, although greatly simplified. I do agree however, that the cost of this debacle is immense - more than most people projected as a worst case scenario. The difference could be made up in reducing the central gov't., which should also include a reduction of the military and our insistence in being involved in everything. Extremely unlikely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #7 September 16, 2003 Quoteunless you're thinking the way GWB is thinking, That's a neat trick! QUICK! What am I thinking! FutureMindReaderCam! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #8 September 16, 2003 I don't have a lot of expectations, but will be interested to see how he performs. He can't do worse than the other nine, who had no message other than 'we hate Bush, we judge people by their race and support programs that do the same, socialize medicine, raise taxes on the rich, we hate Bush'. Since he supports Affirmative Action I already tend to dislike him, as I despise that program and the lies politicians cower behind to justify it. If he means rescinding the SECOND Bush tax cut, I like the idea, but would want other targeted cuts put in its place. I'll hold out my decision until after hearing his positions and seeing how things go until next November. AA supporters get an automatic no vote from me unless they can justify their support without lying like a coward. Bush has pissed me off, but not to the point where I'm not going to vote for him. If Wes Clark is the dem nominee, I might vote with my own libertarian party instead, as long as Clark doesn't anger me greatly.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #9 September 16, 2003 You're right, I shouldn't have used GWB and thinking in the same sentence. Ok, how about this, as a rewrite . . . "unless you're doing what GWB is doing". And, that IS what he's doing. He's passing this huge increase in deficit along to your children.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #10 September 16, 2003 I see it as freeing capital so that the economy can grow to the benefit of my children, but point taken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #11 September 16, 2003 Economics is really interesting, but on the simplest level if you decrease the government's revenue without decreasing its spending, you are creating a defecit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Deuce 1 #12 September 16, 2003 QuoteEconomics is really interesting, but on the simplest level if you decrease the government's revenue without decreasing its spending, you are creating a defecit. Precisely. Because it is anything but simple, that logic is innacurate. I think most of our DZ.cast is pretty well established in their positions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #13 September 16, 2003 QuoteQuoteEconomics is really interesting, but on the simplest level if you decrease the government's revenue without decreasing its spending, you are creating a defecit. Precisely. Because it is anything but simple, that logic is innacurate. I think most of our DZ.cast is pretty well established in their positions. How would you say that the logic is inaccurate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ScubaSteve 0 #14 September 16, 2003 Spending also creates new revenues that would not have otherwise have been realized. Think what would of happened if the GWB administration cut spending and raised taxes to balance budget. We would have 50% unemployment, deflation, and the rich would profit by selling to offshoe relief agencies; that would be needed to help American refuges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #15 September 16, 2003 QuoteSpending also creates new revenues that would not have otherwise have been realized. This depends on what type of spending you're talking about. Certain types of government spending do not create revenue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Deuce 1 #16 September 16, 2003 Sorry Johnny, your logic is accurate, assuming economics is simple. But I argue that it's not. My only point is that the argument of simplicity is derailed by starting with the statement "Assuming economics is mindbendingly complex and fluidly dynamic" well, if that is the case then changing revenue may not in fact change deficit. If spending grows at the rate of economic growth we will not overcome the potential deficit. We proved that in California recently when revenues dropped because the economy turned south, and we had dramatically increased spending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #17 September 16, 2003 Pure speculation on your part or can you actually back that up with anything? 50% unemployment as a result of a balanced budget? Seriously. I'm almost certain that's not what would have been the case.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #18 September 16, 2003 QuoteSorry Johnny, your logic is accurate, assuming economics is simple. But I argue that it's not. My only point is that the argument of simplicity is derailed by starting with the statement "Assuming economics is mindbendingly complex and fluidly dynamic" well, if that is the case then changing revenue may not in fact change deficit. If spending grows at the rate of economic growth we will not overcome the potential deficit. We proved that in California recently when revenues dropped because the economy turned south, and we had dramatically increased spending. We're on the same page. I was just trying to help make a little sense out of something that we likely couldn't begin to wrap our brains around as a whole. CA appears to have all sorts of interesting ideas to boost revenue - gaming, prostitution - me likey. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #19 September 16, 2003 Think of how much the revenues would be increased if we taxed everyone at 90 percent. We have to save 10 percent for the state and local taxes. Think of how much money would come in to we taxed at 90 percent. With all the money that this country makes. The feds would be rolling in money, right? A lot more than they are now. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BikerBabe 0 #20 September 16, 2003 I'd vote for him. Honestly, once he announces and lays out a platform, he may be the only dem who has a chance of beating Bush this time. With his background, he's probably slightly more conservative (or at least moderate) than most of the other 9...trust me, I know what it means to be a democrat in the military. If anything, he's learned how to effectively handle criticism and arguments from the right. I've heard him speak (when he was still a general)...he has an amazing presence. One of those people that walks into a room and commands attention and respect. Don't discount the charisma factor when analyzing a candidate...any candidate.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #21 September 16, 2003 Now you're just being silly. Be serious for a moment and think about the GWB tax cuts AND the $87,000,000,000 increase in requirements as a result of the war in Iraq he just talked about in his last address to the Nation. How can you logically reconcile that? I know that when my company gets a huge unexpected budget hit, they don't hand out larger dividends to the shareholders. I just don't see the logic in GWB standing behind his tax cuts at this point.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #22 September 16, 2003 QuoteNow you're just being silly. Actually, that's my point. Federal revenues can be increased by lowering taxes. If the tax rate was at 90 percent, the tax revenues would be less than at 50 percent. Why? Because nobody would want to work if they knew they couldn't keep it. Productivity would plummet, and the self-interest to make a buck would be gone. With less income, there will be less taxes. Of course, taxing at a rate of zero percent would have the same effect on the federal treasury. There comes a point where revenue is maximized. Perhaps this is a 33 percent rate. Maybe it's 40 percent. If the tax rate is too high, lowering taxes will increase the revenue. My point is that raising taxes doesn't mean bringin in more revenue. Hey, I want to make more money. Why not charge $10,000 for a cup of lemonade? I'll find I haven't made anything. But, if I charge 1 dollar for the cup, I'll make more money. How about if I lower the price to 50 cents to make more money? If I get 10 buyers at a buck, and 50 byers at 50 cents, then I'll do the math and lower the price to make more money. WHo knows? Maybe lowering the tax rate two or three percent will generate 90 billion in new revenues. It probably won't. But mayeb a few billion here and there. And as far as reconciliation? When a company gets a huge unexpected budget hit, it doesn't increase dividends. But it also doesn't mean that it no longer invests in new capital. And for balancing any budget, why not apply the O'Rourke Circumcision Principle: "You can take ten percent off of ANYTHING." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #23 September 16, 2003 QuoteIf the tax rate was at 90 percent, the tax revenues would be less than at 50 percent. Why? Because nobody would want to work if they knew they couldn't keep it. Productivity would plummet, and the self-interest to make a buck would be gone. With less income, there will be less taxes. So, unemployment is a direct correlation to tax rates? If we lower taxes, all my friends who can't find jobs would suddenly have jobs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bmcd308 0 #24 September 16, 2003 >>So, unemployment is a direct correlation to tax rates? << Tax rates help determine the shape (and position) of the supply curve for labor. Higher taxes do indeed lead to higher unemployment, because the opportunity cost of unemployment is reduced (you forego less disposable income by not working). >>If we lower taxes, all my friends who can't find jobs would suddenly have jobs? << Your friends could probably get jobs now, just not jobs they want. If they are willing to work for minimum wage, and they still can't find jobs, then the minimum wage is too high. Right now in lots of professions, the opinion of the suppliers of labor regarding the value of their foregone leisure is out of balance with the opinions of those who demand labor with the value of their productivity. Lower corporate taxes will increase the benefit to employers of having additional productive capacity (people), so lower corporate taxes would be expected to shift the demand curve for labor (and all other productive inputs) to the right. This will lead to a higher quantity of labor supplied in the economy and increase overall economic output. Taxes are inefficient; there is really no doubt about that. The problem is that the market inefficiencies inherent in taxes are the way we achieve lots of social goals, not all of which are disagreeable. Without taxes, your friends would be more likely to be able to find jobs. However, they would have a tough time getting to work in the morning without roads, and they would have a tough time enjoying their paychecks without police to enforce the laws against killing them to take their checks away, etc. Lots of stuff winds up being considered in any policy decision, so unfortunately the arguments of economists (like me) are often made in a context that none of us would want to live in. Brent ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DivaSkyChick 0 #25 September 16, 2003 Hahah Quade, I knew I could depend on you! I heard the tail end of an interview with him on NPR and dispaired of getting the rest of the story. Then I thought to myself, Quade will post something... Thanks babe! Mandy --- www.facebook.com/mandyhamptonfitch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
JohnnyD 0 #11 September 16, 2003 Economics is really interesting, but on the simplest level if you decrease the government's revenue without decreasing its spending, you are creating a defecit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #12 September 16, 2003 QuoteEconomics is really interesting, but on the simplest level if you decrease the government's revenue without decreasing its spending, you are creating a defecit. Precisely. Because it is anything but simple, that logic is innacurate. I think most of our DZ.cast is pretty well established in their positions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #13 September 16, 2003 QuoteQuoteEconomics is really interesting, but on the simplest level if you decrease the government's revenue without decreasing its spending, you are creating a defecit. Precisely. Because it is anything but simple, that logic is innacurate. I think most of our DZ.cast is pretty well established in their positions. How would you say that the logic is inaccurate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScubaSteve 0 #14 September 16, 2003 Spending also creates new revenues that would not have otherwise have been realized. Think what would of happened if the GWB administration cut spending and raised taxes to balance budget. We would have 50% unemployment, deflation, and the rich would profit by selling to offshoe relief agencies; that would be needed to help American refuges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #15 September 16, 2003 QuoteSpending also creates new revenues that would not have otherwise have been realized. This depends on what type of spending you're talking about. Certain types of government spending do not create revenue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #16 September 16, 2003 Sorry Johnny, your logic is accurate, assuming economics is simple. But I argue that it's not. My only point is that the argument of simplicity is derailed by starting with the statement "Assuming economics is mindbendingly complex and fluidly dynamic" well, if that is the case then changing revenue may not in fact change deficit. If spending grows at the rate of economic growth we will not overcome the potential deficit. We proved that in California recently when revenues dropped because the economy turned south, and we had dramatically increased spending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 September 16, 2003 Pure speculation on your part or can you actually back that up with anything? 50% unemployment as a result of a balanced budget? Seriously. I'm almost certain that's not what would have been the case.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #18 September 16, 2003 QuoteSorry Johnny, your logic is accurate, assuming economics is simple. But I argue that it's not. My only point is that the argument of simplicity is derailed by starting with the statement "Assuming economics is mindbendingly complex and fluidly dynamic" well, if that is the case then changing revenue may not in fact change deficit. If spending grows at the rate of economic growth we will not overcome the potential deficit. We proved that in California recently when revenues dropped because the economy turned south, and we had dramatically increased spending. We're on the same page. I was just trying to help make a little sense out of something that we likely couldn't begin to wrap our brains around as a whole. CA appears to have all sorts of interesting ideas to boost revenue - gaming, prostitution - me likey. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 September 16, 2003 Think of how much the revenues would be increased if we taxed everyone at 90 percent. We have to save 10 percent for the state and local taxes. Think of how much money would come in to we taxed at 90 percent. With all the money that this country makes. The feds would be rolling in money, right? A lot more than they are now. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #20 September 16, 2003 I'd vote for him. Honestly, once he announces and lays out a platform, he may be the only dem who has a chance of beating Bush this time. With his background, he's probably slightly more conservative (or at least moderate) than most of the other 9...trust me, I know what it means to be a democrat in the military. If anything, he's learned how to effectively handle criticism and arguments from the right. I've heard him speak (when he was still a general)...he has an amazing presence. One of those people that walks into a room and commands attention and respect. Don't discount the charisma factor when analyzing a candidate...any candidate.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #21 September 16, 2003 Now you're just being silly. Be serious for a moment and think about the GWB tax cuts AND the $87,000,000,000 increase in requirements as a result of the war in Iraq he just talked about in his last address to the Nation. How can you logically reconcile that? I know that when my company gets a huge unexpected budget hit, they don't hand out larger dividends to the shareholders. I just don't see the logic in GWB standing behind his tax cuts at this point.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 September 16, 2003 QuoteNow you're just being silly. Actually, that's my point. Federal revenues can be increased by lowering taxes. If the tax rate was at 90 percent, the tax revenues would be less than at 50 percent. Why? Because nobody would want to work if they knew they couldn't keep it. Productivity would plummet, and the self-interest to make a buck would be gone. With less income, there will be less taxes. Of course, taxing at a rate of zero percent would have the same effect on the federal treasury. There comes a point where revenue is maximized. Perhaps this is a 33 percent rate. Maybe it's 40 percent. If the tax rate is too high, lowering taxes will increase the revenue. My point is that raising taxes doesn't mean bringin in more revenue. Hey, I want to make more money. Why not charge $10,000 for a cup of lemonade? I'll find I haven't made anything. But, if I charge 1 dollar for the cup, I'll make more money. How about if I lower the price to 50 cents to make more money? If I get 10 buyers at a buck, and 50 byers at 50 cents, then I'll do the math and lower the price to make more money. WHo knows? Maybe lowering the tax rate two or three percent will generate 90 billion in new revenues. It probably won't. But mayeb a few billion here and there. And as far as reconciliation? When a company gets a huge unexpected budget hit, it doesn't increase dividends. But it also doesn't mean that it no longer invests in new capital. And for balancing any budget, why not apply the O'Rourke Circumcision Principle: "You can take ten percent off of ANYTHING." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #23 September 16, 2003 QuoteIf the tax rate was at 90 percent, the tax revenues would be less than at 50 percent. Why? Because nobody would want to work if they knew they couldn't keep it. Productivity would plummet, and the self-interest to make a buck would be gone. With less income, there will be less taxes. So, unemployment is a direct correlation to tax rates? If we lower taxes, all my friends who can't find jobs would suddenly have jobs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #24 September 16, 2003 >>So, unemployment is a direct correlation to tax rates? << Tax rates help determine the shape (and position) of the supply curve for labor. Higher taxes do indeed lead to higher unemployment, because the opportunity cost of unemployment is reduced (you forego less disposable income by not working). >>If we lower taxes, all my friends who can't find jobs would suddenly have jobs? << Your friends could probably get jobs now, just not jobs they want. If they are willing to work for minimum wage, and they still can't find jobs, then the minimum wage is too high. Right now in lots of professions, the opinion of the suppliers of labor regarding the value of their foregone leisure is out of balance with the opinions of those who demand labor with the value of their productivity. Lower corporate taxes will increase the benefit to employers of having additional productive capacity (people), so lower corporate taxes would be expected to shift the demand curve for labor (and all other productive inputs) to the right. This will lead to a higher quantity of labor supplied in the economy and increase overall economic output. Taxes are inefficient; there is really no doubt about that. The problem is that the market inefficiencies inherent in taxes are the way we achieve lots of social goals, not all of which are disagreeable. Without taxes, your friends would be more likely to be able to find jobs. However, they would have a tough time getting to work in the morning without roads, and they would have a tough time enjoying their paychecks without police to enforce the laws against killing them to take their checks away, etc. Lots of stuff winds up being considered in any policy decision, so unfortunately the arguments of economists (like me) are often made in a context that none of us would want to live in. Brent ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DivaSkyChick 0 #25 September 16, 2003 Hahah Quade, I knew I could depend on you! I heard the tail end of an interview with him on NPR and dispaired of getting the rest of the story. Then I thought to myself, Quade will post something... Thanks babe! Mandy --- www.facebook.com/mandyhamptonfitch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
