Interesting response on U Tube debate

[2easy]

[ QUOTE ]
Pure capitalism worked so long as the US had a frontier for the destitute poor to start over or make a living farming. By the 1920's, the frontier was all settled and that was a big cause of the Great Depression which lead to the start of the tilt to bigger government socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow! I trust that your political perspective is as clear as your historical perspective.

Inflated stock market due to margin buying, margin calls and bank runs all not withstanding, it was the lack of frontier to start over on?

Learn something new every day.

[JavaNut]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that US is tilted too much toward the socialism/communist end.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not even close, in Europe Democrats in US are considered right wing politicians. Republicans would be considered far right and those republicans who mix politics and religion would be considered as far right extremists.

Communism is when a private person is not allowed to own the means of production, ie. factories, farms, stores etc. All that has to be owned by the state.

Socialism is actually the same (the former soviet union called itself socialistic as did the other eastern block countries), though in many European countries there are political parties going for a socialistic, democratic approach, where you are allowed to own the means of production but are taxed heavily. Currently the record is 65 cent of the last earned dollar.

Oh and a previous poster stated that US is getting more taxes in due to a tax cut to the rich. How very Reaganistic. Please explain the gigantic US budget deficit.

And the notion of leaving NAFTA and WTO, without them US would go broke in 10 years. How would the US economy look like if say Microsoft, Apple, Boeing and others moved to Europe? They'd have to, because it is where the money is and they'd be taxed out from any market outside the US if US left WTO.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I like poker. I hope it stays legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pure capitalism worked so long as the US had a frontier for the destitute poor to start over or make a living farming. By the 1920's, the frontier was all settled and that was a big cause of the Great Depression which lead to the start of the tilt to bigger government socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow! I trust that your political perspective is as clear as your historical perspective.

Inflated stock market due to margin buying, margin calls and bank runs all not withstanding, it was the lack of frontier to start over on?

Learn something new every day.

[/ QUOTE ]

The stock market crash was a symptom of the Great Depression not the cause. It started with a collapse of farm prices. However, not having a frontier lead to a large surplus of labor in the cities, which caused rapid deflation. With a frontier, recessions and depressions were common, but did not cause the deep changes in America because the frontier deflected social pressures and reduced surplus of labor in the cities.
Government spending takes up surplus labor and reduces or eliminates deflation. So far it has worked. But too much government stifles growth and innovation.

[cheddarthief]

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats will raise taxes on the rich, Republicans cut taxes for the rich and raise them for the poor. Republicans were/are behind the push to outlaw all online poker. Democrats are the ones (with a few Republicans) who are fighting for freedom and trying to let adults do what they want to with their own money. Republicans say you can only spend your money on things they morally aprove of.

[/ QUOTE ]


Okay, you must be high. While I have recently re-examined my own political stance since the Republicans force fed this law through Congress, I have to tell you that you are dead wrong. Republicans are all about freedoms. They feel that people need to be more responsible for their own actions and only let government take care of things such as defense, infrastructure and foreign policy. They do not tax the poor more than the rich either. This is what is so surprising to me about the resent legislation that was passed. They give tax "relief" to the rich that invest their wealth to create more businesses and thus produce more paying jobs. Those whole make millions and then do nothing with it but hoard it pay very high taxes on their gains. Democrats on the other hand, want the mass of people to be lower income and thus require them to do more for them. They want you to say, "help me, I cannot do it for myself". They can then in turn, raise taxes as a justification so that they can take care of their people. I am not a loyal Bush supporter but I will tell you that no president, even your beloved Clinton, would have been able to survive in the post 9-11 area any better than Bush. Take any major tax consumer in government today and it is traced back to a democratically controlled government, the welfare program being a prime example. You really need to do your homework before taking what the media feeds to you as truth before making such vague statements. Remember, if they own the information, they can get you to believe whatever they want. Take control and make your own conclusions. Don't just digest what they feed you and regurgitate it when you want to be angry about something.

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democrats will raise taxes on the rich, Republicans cut taxes for the rich and raise them for the poor. Republicans were/are behind the push to outlaw all online poker. Democrats are the ones (with a few Republicans) who are fighting for freedom and trying to let adults do what they want to with their own money. Republicans say you can only spend your money on things they morally aprove of.

[/ QUOTE ]


Okay, you must be high. While I have recently re-examined my own political stance since the Republicans force fed this law through Congress, I have to tell you that you are dead wrong. Republicans are all about freedoms. They feel that people need to be more responsible for their own actions and only let government take care of things such as defense, infrastructure and foreign policy. They do not tax the poor more than the rich either. This is what is so surprising to me about the resent legislation that was passed. They give tax "relief" to the rich that invest their wealth to create more businesses and thus produce more paying jobs. Those whole make millions and then do nothing with it but hoard it pay very high taxes on their gains. Democrats on the other hand, want the mass of people to be lower income and thus require them to do more for them. They want you to say, "help me, I cannot do it for myself". They can then in turn, raise taxes as a justification so that they can take care of their people. I am not a loyal Bush supporter but I will tell you that no president, even your beloved Clinton, would have been able to survive in the post 9-11 area any better than Bush. Take any major tax consumer in government today and it is traced back to a democratically controlled government, the welfare program being a prime example. You really need to do your homework before taking what the media feeds to you as truth before making such vague statements. Remember, if they own the information, they can get you to believe whatever they want. Take control and make your own conclusions. Don't just digest what they feed you and regurgitate it when you want to be angry about something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Republicans: Bill Frist, Jon Kyl, George Bush etc, say I can't play poker.

Democrats: Robert Wexler, Barney Frank, Shelly Berkley say I should be able to play poker.

Result: Like Doyle Brunson, a former life long Republican said, "I will never, ever, vote for another Republican."

[justin]

For you cheddar thief: go read Al Gore's new book if you really think their is a liberal media bias. Also the idea that people will spend thier money if you give the rich tax breaks; How many washing machines can a millionaire buy and how many washing machines can 20 people making 50k dollars a year buy......... [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img].

As for you JP the irony of all these companies is they say dont regulate us but they all go begging and bribing every politicaian they can for government handouts and subsidies.

P.S. God bless Ron paul and Barney Frank

[dfan]

There is an interesting economic process that is almost always left out of the liberal/conservative debate regarding taxes/distribution of wealth, etc. It is what I have termed the Monopoly Effect.

Remember how in the game if you were lucky enough to get some good properties early, you would start getting money from all the other players in the form of rent, and collecting this rent allowed you to buy more property, which meant other players had to pay you more and more often. Barring a miracle, a snowball effect occurs and you end up with all the money and everyone else is broke.

The Monopoly effect is great for a game because it ensures the game will end, even if it does take hours to do so.

But while the same effect can be good for a economy at first (concentrating wealth so businesses get started, etc), in the long run -- spanning several generations -- it is a problem for real world, non-game economies. That is, it is a problem unless you have as a desired goal a society where a tiny few are enormously rich and the vast majority are struggling to get by.

Reasonable arguments can be made for and against the "best" shape for a country's wealth distribution. If it is completely flat there is no incentive to work harder, take risks, etc. If it is so skewed that a very few have all the money, then you have a society where most are poor and the rich few have more money than they know what to do with, and beyond the ethical issues there are incentive problems with that as well. But obviously people will disagree about the proper level of skew in the wealth distribution.

But this isn't what I'm talking about when I mention the Monopoly Effect. The ME says that the wealth distribution becomes progressively more skewed to the upper end as time passes, even if tax policy stays the same.

This is clear if you look at long term US wealth distribution charts. You will see that over the past several decades more and more of the nations wealth has become concentrated into the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of the US population. This effect has held across both Democrats and Republicans adminitrations (although it tends to slow when Dems are in power). That is because money begats money which begats even more money and so on, especially in the form of capital income. And if tax policy stays pretty much the same as it has been this effect will eventually lead to almost all of the wealth in the hands of a very small % of Americans.

Whether you are conservative or liberal you should see that while disparities in income are necessary to incentivize an economy, there is a point where this process becomes counterproductive. Currently we are already seeing these untoward effects. In 2007 the US middle class is poorer in real dollars than their parents were even though the real dollar GDP in 2007 is much higher than it was a generation ago. Where did the extra GDP go? Due to "safety net" social programs a tiny bit went to our poorest, who have been holding their own, meager as that is. But most went to the wealthiest Americans.

The monopoly effect is actually a trickle-up effect that is seldom considered in these discussions. Sorry for writing a book but it is a very real and significant economic process that shouldn't be ignored.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
poor pay taxes. .... You don't think Social Security is a tax? Medicare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the 'poor' get back far in excess of taxes paid in from paycheck with holding.

Even the 'poor' who have no children and can use a standard deduction for a 100% refund can get extra money as well above and beyond what they had with held.

Is SS a tax, no, they will get that as well and guess what, if it is below a certain level, they get a Supplemental Social Security check to make up the difference.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Medicare in NYC is the best, gold-plated health insurance you can get. You can't even buy a policy to give you the same coverage as Medicare gives for $40k, $50k per year.

Regardless, lowering tax rates has the effect of raising tax revenues, as demonstrated by Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush.

Supply-side theory predicts that tax hikes will not result in commensurate gains in tax revenues. The Clinton tax hike of 1993 sharply increased rates on personal incomes. As supply-side theory would predict, compared with revenues expected by the Congressional Budget Office in 1992 before the hikes were enacted, actual tax receipts were lower in 1993 and 1994, the same in 1995, and only 3% higher in 1996.

Supply-side theory also predicts that tax cuts will not result in commensurate losses in tax revenues, and may even result in gains thanks to increased economic activity. In 1997, the tax rate on capital-gains income was cut by the Republican Congress. As supply-side theory would predict, compared with revenues expected by CBO in 1996 before the cuts were enacted, actual tax receipts were 5% higher in 1997, 10% higher in 1998, and 12% higher in 1999.

'Last year the Congressional Budget Office released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, and buried in one of its nearly impenetrable tables of numbers is a remarkable story that has gone entirely unreported by the mainstream media:

The 2003 tax cut on capital gains has entirely paid for itself. More than paid for itself. Way more.

To appreciate this story, we have to go back in time to January 2003, before the tax cut was enacted. Table 3-5 on page 60 in CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook published in 2003 estimated that capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $125 billion.

Now let's move forward a year, to January 2004, after the capital-gains tax cut had been enacted. Table 4-4 on page 82 in CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook of that year shows that the estimates for capital-gains tax liabilities had been lowered to $46 billion in 2004 and $52 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $98 billion. Compare the original $125 billion total to the new $98 billion total, and we can infer that CBO was forecasting that the tax cut would cost the government $27 billion in revenues.

Those are the estimates. Now let's see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released this week. You'll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So let's do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.
http://www.americanshareholders.com/...002-782484.gif

This should come as no surprise since the same effect occurred following the 1981 and 1997 capital gains tax reductions. Following the 1997 capital gains tax cut revenues increased $24 billion above the forecast in 1998 and $36 billion above forecast in 1999 due to higher levels of economic growth ...' ~ Dan Clifton

This trend continued in 2006, making the numbers even more dramatic.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]

This is clear if you look at long term US wealth distribution charts. You will see that over the past several decades more and more of the nations wealth has become concentrated into the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of the US population.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is blatantly false, you can go to the Fed and CBO websites and pull up the actual charts, which I see you haven't.


[ QUOTE ]
That is because money begats money which begats even more money and so on, especially in the form of capital income. And if tax policy stays pretty much the same as it has been this effect will eventually lead to almost all of the wealth in the hands of a very small % of Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also wildly incorrect. 94% of millionaires are self-made according to the two latest studies [it was 90% 10 years ago.]

Secondly, most family fortunes [those that pay the Death Tax] are reduced to less than $1mm per descendant by the third generation due to taxes, divorce, and over-spending/ under-investing.

[ QUOTE ]

In 2007 the US middle class is poorer in real dollars than their parents were even though the real dollar GDP in 2007 is much higher than it was a generation ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are 100% false yet again, why are you so ignorant and lazy to actually pull up the data? Your campaign is misinformation is laughable. Here's the actual data from the FRB, CBO, and IRS websites:

Real, after-tax, per-capita disposable income is up approximately 91% or more since 1972. Over the past two years, real disposable income is up 4% or so.
[This, of course, includes the tens of millions of immigrants who have arrived on the scene recently, and have not had the full benefit of all of those decades to climb the economic ladder. ]

1972 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $14,512
1987 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $20,072
1995 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $22,153
2006 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $27,789

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. You'd think the 'society imploding' doom-and-gloomers would not need to resort to disinformation to make their point.