Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
INTERESTING INTERVIEW with new Economics Nobelist Edward Prescott:

Prescott, speaking from Minnesota, where he advises the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, described Kerry's plan to roll back tax cuts for top wage-earners as counterproductive.

"The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid," he said.

Bush's campaign on Monday released a letter signed by Prescott and five other Nobel laureates critical of Kerry's proposal to roll back tax reductions for families earning $200,000 or more.

In The Republic interview, he said such a policy would discourage people from working.

"It's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a household," Prescott said. "We want those highly educated, talented people to work."

Prescott also gave Bush the nod on another controversial campaign issue, dismissing Kerry's claims that outsourcing of jobs is damaging the economy. . . . Prescott also backed the idea, espoused by Bush, to reform Social Security by allowing some workers to place a portion of their payroll taxes into private savings accounts.

http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/cli...rescott19.html

After the Laffer curve was demonstrated to be complete bunk, you'd have to be pretty damn stupid (or an academic economist) to believe that tax policy discourages people from earning more income.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Jail is more like it. If a mother allowed her husband to rape her daughter for years and was complicit in covering it up, she'd be charged. Law should have been charged. You don't "clean house" by slapping people on the wrist. make the fat bastard taste what he was complicit in allowing. I can think of no more correct punishment than having someone teach him what its like to have a hand up his frock.

I'd love to see the guy charged, and think that the faith requires taking your just punishment as part of repentance, but the chances that the US Atty will charge a Cardinal in Massachusetts is pretty slim. It hasn't happened in the Bush administration, and I don't think it will happen in the Kerry administration.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And you like to forget that the Democrats were also in favor of the war in Iraq, until Howard Dean started to pull away in the polls. Then it became OK to be against it, even if you were for it.

This has been the Democrats' biggest problem this election - they can't decide what they want to be when they grow up. They're torn between representing the Demo wing of the Demo party, and corralling the many more moderates out there. For a bit, it looked like they would go moderate, but then Dean came on the scene, and skewed it horribly - they had to go left to counter what he was doing, and to regain who he was attracting. Now, with Dean out of the way, they want the moderates again, but they're stuck with all of the things they said and did in the anti-Dean fight.

Not that the Repubs wouldn't do the same - it's just that, when you campaign for an incumbent, you don't have all of that "all-over-the-map" primary stuff to contend with.

Kerry, being what he is, has done a less than perfect job of reassuring all concerned that he will be "their" president. His problem is, he can't be all of those things. His constituency is just way too spread out. He could have simply been vague - instead, he waffled. Wrong choice.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
After the Laffer curve was demonstrated to be complete bunk, you'd have to be pretty damn stupid (or an academic economist) to believe that tax policy discourages people from earning more income.

This was only in response to Ty assertion that "no serious economist" believes in the tax cuts. I think this guy qualifies, and probably beats out you and I in the process.

Or, maybe he's pretty damn stupid.

[SlaveNoMore]

Apparently, the film incenses the self-important, hand-wringing communists over at Democratic Underground.

Worth a gander, for a laugh.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
INTERESTING INTERVIEW with new Economics Nobelist Edward Prescott:

Prescott, speaking from Minnesota, where he advises the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, described Kerry's plan to roll back tax cuts for top wage-earners as counterproductive.

"The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid," he said.

Bush's campaign on Monday released a letter signed by Prescott and five other Nobel laureates critical of Kerry's proposal to roll back tax reductions for families earning $200,000 or more.

In The Republic interview, he said such a policy would discourage people from working.

"It's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a household," Prescott said. "We want those highly educated, talented people to work."

Prescott also gave Bush the nod on another controversial campaign issue, dismissing Kerry's claims that outsourcing of jobs is damaging the economy. . . . Prescott also backed the idea, espoused by Bush, to reform Social Security by allowing some workers to place a portion of their payroll taxes into private savings accounts.

http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/cli...rescott19.html

(1) Of course raising taxes will have some marginal effect on the economy. But then, so will borrowing money. Let's just get rid of all taxes, and borrow the whole budget!

(2) Kerry's objection to outsourcing is that it's hurting workers, not damaging the economy. Republicans are unclear on the difference -- middle-class voters who fear for their jobs are not.

(3) "Reforming" Social Security by letting people place money in "private savings accounts" is OK to say, but if you call this "privatizing" you are a shrill critic of the President. Got it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It is as intellectually dishonest when used to further a form of government as it is when use to further a form of belief.

To say that the founding fathers believed that democracy was an infallibly correct form of governance is incorrect. They fought like bastards over what form of a republic we should have.

And Catholics fight like bastards over the exact meaning of the Assumption of Mary, the only teaching generally recognized within the church as indisputably coming under the doctrine of infallibility.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) Of course raising taxes will have some marginal effect on the economy. But then, so will borrowing money. Let's just get rid of all taxes, and borrow the whole budget!

I'd rather we elected a Republican, (none running this year, unfortunately), and dispense with this idea that we need one of those two ways to fund a growing government.

(2) Kerry's objection to outsourcing is that it's hurting workers, not damaging the economy. Republicans are unclear on the difference -- middle-class voters who fear for their jobs are not.

The only way to see a difference between the two is either through wilfull ignorance, or a perception that illogical pandering might win an election.

(3) "Reforming" Social Security by letting people place money in "private savings accounts" is OK to say, but if you call this "privatizing" you are a shrill critic of the President. Got it.

Huh? I think Bush called it privatizing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Apparently, the film incenses the self-important, hand-wringing communists over at Democratic Underground.

Worth a gander, for a laugh.

I finally saw 9/11. what a disjointed piece of crap. I really don't get what you guys are talking about when you say there are damaging facts. it was pretty clearly a hatchet job, and a dumb one at that.

what in the movie rang true for you guys?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, there were two votes. The first didn't pass. The second did, and Kerry voted against it. 30 of the senators that voted for the first bill also voted for the second bill. Kerry did not. So after his bill was defeated, he voted against the only remaining bill that would fund the troops - hence, "I voted for it before I voted against it." That's responsible.

There was no question -- none -- that the troops would get funded. The only question was how. Taxwonk now has my proxy on this.

We've talked about this before. It is not the disent, it is the manner in which it is done. Without rehashing the entire debate, there is a way to do it that is presidential, and a way to do it that is not. Kerry has, at times, chosen the latter, although he positioned it much more presidential in the debates.

It's hard for me to believe that you want to pick this fight. With Bush's malapropisms, faux folksiness (fauxiness?), scowling, grimacing, and so on, it's a wash for you guys, at best.

I'm talking about the fact that when Bush calls the French on their bullshit you squawk about a lack of diplomacy, but when Kerry calls Allawi on something Kerry thinks is bullshit he is just calling a spade a spade.

First of all, I don't know what you're talking about. Second of all, my objection to Bush's approach to diplomacy is not that it lacks decorum or respect, but that it serves our country's interests poorly.

I don't know but that's not the point. A good diplomat never utters words remotely like this.

"Bring it on." And a good diplomat doesn't build a "coalition" of the coerced and bribed. (I might say something about the particular countries in the coalition, but after the vice-presidential debate the White House removed the list and links to it from the White House web site.)

Heh. They don't issue us the decoder rings that Gatti passes out at your meetings.

You don't need a decoder ring, only seventh-grade English.

And you like to forget that the Democrats were also in favor of the war in Iraq, until Howard Dean started to pull away in the polls. Then it became OK to be against it, even if you were for it.

No. There is now and there has been a split among Democrats over the war. Many Democrats supported it. Many opposed it. Howard Dean was the first viable candidate to oppose it, and got support for tapping into the people who felt unrepresented.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
This was only in response to Ty assertion that "no serious economist" believes in the tax cuts. I think this guy qualifies, and probably beats out you and I in the process.

I said no serious economist believes the tax cuts were the best way to spur the economy, and what you posted does not contradict me. On this point, I will rely on club, who has repeatedly pointed out that the bulk of the stimulus from the tax cuts has yet to even go into effect.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm not entirely certain that they oppose abortion in every case (there may be an exception for e.g., a serious threat to a mother), but I think the "I do believe that each individual must make that decision for herself" thing is inconsistent.

Actually, no. One cannot choose between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus. Therefore, even if the life of the mother is in direct and immediate jeapordy, it is against Church doctrine to abort the fetus to save her life.

However, if, in the process of saving her life a fetus is aborted unintentionally, as a side effect, that is OK because there was no intent to terminate it. Atticus can correct me if this has been refined in the last 15-20 years, but I think it is still current. Yes, this sets off my bullshit meter, too, so don't ask me to justify it. FWIW, "medical treatment" other than birth control has also justified the use of the pill (though why "preventative medical treatment" doesn't justify condom use is beyond me - maybe sex is voluntary and therefore no medical treatment making it safe is ever "necessary," while regulation of menstrual cycles is legit even for virgins). See, generally: the doctrine of the double effect.

FWIW, I do agree that one has to respect the Church for refusing to back down on what it considers a fundamental belief just because it is unpopular. Better to lose 90% of adherents than to taint them all, I suppose. And, if you think abortion is murder, it isn't really legitimate to say "well, I don't like it but I don't think I should impose my beliefs on others." If a fetus is a person with a soul (or whatever) and with as much a right to live as any other person, then there is a real problem with the "I'll just mind my own business" stance, and if you don't believe me substitute "female children" or "black people" for "fetus" and see where it gets you. (However, I don't think most people who hold the "mind my own business" position think this - I think they just find abortion distasteful, the same way they are squeamish about drowning kittens. If I'm wrong, they are unbelieveable moral cowards.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'd rather we elected a Republican, (none running this year, unfortunately), and dispense with this idea that we need one of those two ways to fund a growing government.

Why would a real Republican run if you guys will vote for someone like Bush?

The only way to see a difference between the two is either through wilfull ignorance, or a perception that illogical pandering might win an election.

Bullshit. Because many workers don't benefit from an improving economy. And they know it. Tell a fifty-five-year-old man who just lost his job to India that he should be happy that the stock market is up.

Huh? I think Bush called it privatizing.

I thought yesterday's ruckus was the White House's denial that he wants to privatize.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I finally saw 9/11. what a disjointed piece of crap. I really don't get what you guys are talking about when you say there are damaging facts. it was pretty clearly a hatchet job, and a dumb one at that.

what in the movie rang true for you guys?

I don't recall anyone here praising the movie.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why would a real Republican run if you guys will vote for someone like Bush?

Dean and Kucinich are sitting at home right now, thinking the same thing.

Bullshit. Because many workers don't benefit from an improving economy. And they know it. Tell a fifty-five-year-old man who just lost his job to India that he should be happy that the stock market is up.

There is no way that involves a time period of more than six months to "help workers" that doesn't involve "helping the economy." If you do something that "helps workers" at the expense of the economy, you'll have more workers hurt within that time. There's no big pot to take wealth from - it's the economy that fuels everything.

I thought yesterday's ruckus was the White House's denial that he wants to privatize.

I thought it was over the "secret plan" to push this through quickly in January without talking about it.