Presidential Election: 2012

[Dapper]

I'll note that this responds to nothing. You asked me a direct question and I answered it.

You think what happens in a communist government reflects what happens in the US, even though what you are saying directly opposes what is actually happening. Financial prosperity has gone down!

You have nothing to refute it with.

It is irrelevant.

I'll wait for something that shows how lower taxes, less regulation or anything Republicans believe in has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes. I am really a Republican, I'm just waiting for something that shows Rep ideology actually works. Help me!

This is about as simple as I can make it.
The Berlin Wall

Explain how a picture of a wall is proof Republican ideology has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes.

 

[Danoff]

You think what happens in a communist government reflects what happens in the US...

No. I'm saying it applies to the US, not reflects. Economics applies to the US.

Explain how a picture of a wall is proof Republican ideology has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes.

It's not a picture of a wall, it's the scenario surrounding the wall. I don't know what "Republican ideology" is, so I can't help you there. I think even if you were talking to a republican they probably couldn't help you with that . If you're wondering how lower taxation and lower governmental manipulation of the free market can result in prosperity, you need look no further than the two sides of the Berlin Wall as a black and white example.

 

[Dapper]

If you're wondering how lower taxation and lower governmental manipulation of the free market can result in prosperity, you need look no further than the two sides of the Berlin Wall as a black and white example.

So you are still ignoring the facts (like most Republicans) of the US economy! Lower taxes on the rich and less government regulation has resulted is drastically lower financial prosperity for almost every American. And all you have is an irrelevant picture.

 

[Danoff]

So you are still ignoring the facts of the US economy! Lower taxes on the rich and less government regulation has resulted is drastically lower financial prosperity for almost every American.

Prove it.

Edit:
(to be explicit: prove not only that almost every American currently experiences lower financial prosperity, but that that scenario is the direct result of lower taxes on the rich and reduced government regulation. I recommend starting with reduced prosperity.)

 

[Dapper]

Prove it.

Take off your blinder already.
Taking into consideration I've posted numerous times the changes that happened in the early 80's.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/one-percent-income-inequality-OWS
See the 'what they make' chart? No financial prosperity for 30 years for 90% of population. Remove the blinders...

 

[Danoff]

Take off your blinder already.
Taking into consideration I've posted numerous times the changes that happened in the early 80's.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/one-percent-income-inequality-OWS
See the 'what they make' chart? No financial prosperity for 30 years for 90% of population. Remove the blinders...

How does that show "drastically lower financial prosperity for almost every American"? Even taking the charts at face value it's a flat line. Note how the line doesn't go downward? Find something (anything) to support your claim.

Go. I'll wait.

 

[Dapper]

How does that show "drastically lower financial prosperity for almost every American"? Even taking the charts at face value it's a flat line. Note how the line doesn't go downward? Find something (anything) to support your claim.

Go. I'll wait.

How is flat income growth while inflation is going up being prosperous? Maybe you don't know what inflation or prosperous are.
Once again-

I'll wait for something that shows how lower taxes, less regulation or anything Republicans believe in has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes.

 

[Danoff]

How is flat income growth while inflation is going up being prosperous? Maybe you don't know what inflation or prosperous are.

Chart says 2008 dollars. Try again.

Edit:

Also, here from the article:

While incomes for the superrich have skyrocketed in the past three decades, most Americans' have flatlined.

Flatlined, as opposed to:

drastically lower financial prosperity for almost every American

Edit2:

Also, you might note that there is a scale issue with that chart that prevents us from seeing any real detail.

Edit3:

I'll wait for something that shows how lower taxes, less regulation or anything Republicans believe in has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes.

 

[Dapper]

I'll wait for something that shows how lower taxes, less regulation or anything Republicans believe in has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes.

I think you have struck out by now, Danoff.

 

[Danoff]

I think you have struck out by now, Danoff.

That's it? You're already giving up? One attempt and you're ready to admit that you were talking out of your rear?

Surely you have more...

Lower taxes on the rich and less government regulation has resulted is drastically lower financial prosperity for almost every American.

Back it up.

 

[Dapper]

That's it? You're already giving up? One attempt and you're ready to admit that you were talking out of your rear?

Surely you have more...

You have never addressed my original statement.
A picture is not evidence things financially have gotten better for most Americans.

Back it up.

This goes back to reading graphs and stuff.

drastically lower financial prosperity for almost every American

If one knows what prosper means, this is definitely true. Lower prosperity is not making less income.

 

[Danoff]

You have never addressed my original statement.
A picture is not evidence things for most American have gotten better.

I addressed your original statement (which you're backpedaling from here) perfectly.

I'll wait for something that shows how lower taxes, less regulation or anything Republicans believe in has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes.

I wouldn't necessarily expect you to see the difference between asking how lower taxes and less regulation can help most people and asking for evidence that things for most Americans have gotten better. But there is a difference. I provided you with the former.

This goes back to reading graphs and stuff.

Show me exactly where I misread your graph. Here is where you misread your own graph:

How is flat income growth while inflation is going up being prosperous? Maybe you don't know what inflation or prosperous are.

You didn't realize inflation had been accounted for (and pretended that it meant I didn't know what inflation was). And you attempted to use a chart that did not show a decline in prosperity to support the this claim:

drastically lower financial prosperity for almost every American

To summarize. You asked me to show that decreased government regulation and control over income can lead to general prosperity. I cited a well known historical example. You then tried to shift your argument to something else and claim I never responded. Then you claimed I couldn't read a chart that you misread... twice.

 

[Dapper]

To summarize. You asked me to show that decreased government regulation and control over income can lead to general prosperity. I cited a well known historical example. You then tried to shift your argument to something else and claim I never responded. Then you claimed I couldn't read a chart that you misread... twice.

You don't know what prosper means..
And I didn't ask about a communist regime in Germany. I am talking about what's actually happening in the US, specifically people outside of the US's top 1% of income earners, and the evidence that you continue to ignore that shows their incomes are not growing, meaning less prosperous, while the US economy grows at a steady rate and all the profit goes to a minute group of people.

How has less regulation and lower taxes helped most Americans? The GDP grows, the "Job Creators" incomes are growing, but everyone else's income isn't.

 

[Danoff]

You don't know what prosper means..

In this discussion, it doesn't matter what "prosper" means. It matters what "prosperity" means. Specifically "drastically lower financial prosperity for almost every American". Which your own evidence refutes. Please stop trying to change the discussion as it suits you.

In the meantime, I continue to wait for anything that supports that claim.

And I didn't ask about a communist regime in Germany. I am talking about what's actually happening in the US, specifically people outside of the US's top 1% of income earners, and the evidence that you continue to ignore that shows their incomes are not growing, meaning less prosperous, while the US economy grows at a steady rate and all the profit goes to a minute group of people.

No, that's not what you asked. You asked this:

I'll wait for something that shows how lower taxes, less regulation or anything Republicans believe in has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes.

Which, by the way, is a better question than your new one because it pokes at economics in general rather than US-specific issues. I answered your question. You ignored the answer and changed your question. This is typical behavior for you.

How has less regulation and lower taxes helped most Americans? The GDP grows, the "Job Creators" incomes are growing, but everyone else's income isn't.

This is a NEW question, with NEW assumptions. Before this question can possibly be answered, you should specify which time period you're talking about and prove that that particular time period did in fact have lower taxes and less regulation BOTH than some other time you'd like to compare against.

 

[Dapper]

In this discussion, it doesn't matter what "prosper" means. It matters what "prosperity" means. Specifically "drastically lower financial prosperity for almost every American". Which your own evidence refutes. Please stop trying to change the discussion as it suits you.

I never said people make less money, just less prosperous. Less prosperous would mean less growth, and for most Americans that's the case since the early 80's. And the graph agrees.

Despite this being a typical Danoff digression due to lack of evidence, I'll play along.

In the meantime, I continue to wait for anything that supports that claim.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/01/08/richest-20-of-families-by-income/

I found this data on the Census web site. What is interesting about this graph is that it shows the richest 20% of families in the United States has been capturing more of the total income since the mid-70s. Which means of course the bottom 80% is getting less.

Note the graph and blurb are exactly as I said. Less financial prosperity started in the mid 70's, I said 1980, for most Americans. Now I'll wait for evidence of lower taxes and less regulation helping most Americans.

Which, by the way, is a better question than your new one because it pokes at economics in general rather than US-specific issues. I answered your question. You ignored the answer and changed your question. This is typical behavior for you.

You can't supply anything but a picture so now you just can't understand anything?

This is a NEW question, with NEW assumptions.

No it's not. It is the same thing, and you've yet to provide any evidence besides a picture. And there are no assumptions, only facts that you continue to ignore.

I'll wait for something that shows how lower taxes, less regulation or anything Republicans believe in has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes.

How has less regulation and lower taxes helped most Americans?

 

[Biggles]

Danoff: here is the point you seem to be unable to understand - there are choices other than Randian extremism or Communism. The last 70 years have been a period in which all the western democracies worked with some variation of a "mixed economy" & it led to an unprecedented increase in general prosperity, which benefited both the rich elites & the middle classes. This is a demonstrable fact: the rapidly improving standard of living occurred in countries that had complex regulations governing financial & corporate affairs AND a progressive taxation system.

The removal of reasonable regulations on the financial industry were an important contributing factor to the financial crisis & the Bush" tax cuts a significant factor in the growth of the US debt crisis.

I know it's something that you & your fellow libertarian ideologues just can't get your heads around, because you WANT a simple, "mathematical" formula to explain all life's complexities - preferably situated in the cult-like belief in a "natural law", but actually the "Keynsian" era has been massively successful in creating prosperity. If things have started to go off the rails, it's because mistakes have been made in failing to deal with long-term issues in the name of political expediency & passing the buck.

Anybody who thinks electing Ron Paul President is a reasonable solution to the problems facing the US is completely deluded. Always assuming that Paul would be able to initiate a radical libertarian transformation of US society - which given the track record of US politics is in & of itself a complete fantasy - the immediate result would be the melt-down of current US society: massive unemployment as soldiers are demobilized, defence contractors shut down, public servants laid off, subsidized industries left to founder etc. etc.

If a new economic order eventually emerged from this chaos in the US, it would still be left to compete in a global economy in which the growing aspirations of the emerging economic super-powers are the dominant factor. And with government reduced in influence & scope, giant multi-national corporations would instead wield increased control over the lives of citizens.

 

[Tornado]

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/01/08/richest-20-of-families-by-income/

I found this data on the Census web site. What is interesting about this graph is that it shows the richest 20% of families in the United States has been capturing more of the total income since the mid-70s. Which means of course the bottom 80% is getting less.

Note the graph and blurb are exactly as I said. Less financial prosperity started in the mid 70's, I said 1980, for most Americans.

Financial prosperity doesn't work that way. If the standard of living was the same as it was before 1980 than the bolded part (and your claims) would actually be supported. Since the standard of living obviously is not the same as it was prior to 1980, that data does not support the idea lower 80% is worse off just because the upper 20% are better off when the reality is that everyone is better off, just that the upper 20% are even more better off.


If collectively everyone made $100 in 1980 and I made 10% of that, that's $10. If collectively everyone made $200 in 2010 and I only made 7% of that because someone else made a greater percentage of that $200 than he did the $100, that still means that made $4 more than I did in 1980.

 

[Dapper]

that data does not support the idea lower 80% is worse off just because the upper 20% are better off when the reality is that everyone is better off, just that the upper 20% are even more better off.

Who said anything about anyone being worse off? You are using prosperity in the same manner as Danoff. Prosperity is growth, growth/prosperity for most Americans since 1980 is less than the period from the great depression until Reganomics... just like all the objective data in the graphs say. "Getting less" is still getting something... just less. The graph is very clear. If the line stays flat then incomes went up. This is the case up until ~1980, or they actually rise a little! After 1980 the lines representing most Americas start to fall a little, but not more than GDP went up, resulting in a net gain... just less than before... meaning less prosperous. All the while the top line goes up rather steeply. And that is exactly what the rich old guys in the government wanted!

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/03/08/long-term-real-growth-in-us-gdp-per-capita-1871-2009/
GDP is going up at a very predictable, exponential rate. When a shrinking group of people make all the profit from this growth, all the other people will become inherently less prosperous. Financial prosperity for most Americas has been lower in the more free market of today compared to the great depression to Regan period with greater regulation and higher tax rates on the "job creators".

http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/percent_income_top_0_1.gif
This shows how good the distribution of wealth was during the time between the great depression until Regan messed everything up, and the large percent the "job creators" was making just prior to the great depression. And it has the top marginal tax rate along the bottom that just happens to mysteriously coincide with how much the "job creators" (that do not create jobs!) fleece from the rest of the country.

But I'll keep waiting on anything that shows how less taxes and less regulation has helped anyone besides the top ~1%.

 

[shmogt]

Presidential debate on now. One of the other guys actually agreed with Ron Paul in saying that terrorist is a made up thing. Never thought I would see the day that a elected official would ever admit that. Maybe there's hope for America after all.

 

[Danoff]

I never said people make less money, just less prosperous. Less prosperous would mean less growth, and for most Americans that's the case since the early 80's. And the graph agrees.

Definitely not. Prosperous does not mean growth or gains. Your own graph has disproven you.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/01/08/richest-20-of-families-by-income/

Note the graph and blurb are exactly as I said. Less financial prosperity started in the mid 70's, I said 1980, for most Americans. Now I'll wait for evidence of lower taxes and less regulation helping most Americans.

This marks the third time you have misread a graph (interestingly enough it's also the 3rd time I'm aware of you attempting to read a graph). What you said would be true ONLY if the total income for all groups was stagnant. It is not, and your OTHER graph showed that. Keep going, this is hilarious.

You can't supply anything but a picture so now you just can't understand anything?

I have already explained to you it is not merely a picture, but a historical event with fundamental economic significance.

No it's not. It is the same thing

Nope. Here's are your quotes:

I'll wait for something that shows how lower taxes, less regulation or anything Republicans believe in has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes.

How has less regulation and lower taxes helped most Americans?

One of these questions is about economics, and one of them is about American standard of living. Two linked, but different subjects. One of these questions is addressed by the economic lessons embodied in everything surrounding the Berlin Wall, and the other is not. So your accusation that I'm non-responsive is false. I responded to your first question, you modified the question and claimed I didn't respond.

Feel free to apologize.

Danoff: here is the point you seem to be unable to understand - there are choices other than Randian extremism or Communism.

I totally understand that.

The last 70 years have been a period in which all the western democracies worked with some variation of a "mixed economy" & it led to an unprecedented increase in general prosperity, which benefited both the rich elites & the middle classes. This is a demonstrable fact: the rapidly improving standard of living occurred in countries that had complex regulations governing financial & corporate affairs AND a progressive taxation system.

All true. Also, those countries had substantially REDUCED taxes and regulation when compared to soviet Russia and (in line with economic principles) benefited astoundingly from that REDUCED taxation and regulation. I was asked to show how a REDUCTION in taxation and regulation could lead to prosperity. I have.

The removal of reasonable regulations on the financial industry were an important contributing factor to the financial crisis & the Bush" tax cuts a significant factor in the growth of the US debt crisis.

Government directed banks to make bad loans (during Clinton's presidency - Community Reinvestment Act for example) then the government bought many of those bad loans. Why would you fault the banks for making loans they knew they had a buyer for? Especially when that buyer is the American public?

What deregulation specifically do you think was an "important contributing factor" to the financial crisis?

I know it's something that you & your fellow libertarian ideologues just can't get your heads around, because you WANT a simple, "mathematical" formula to explain all life's complexities - preferably situated in the cult-like belief in a "natural law", but actually the "Keynsian" era has been massively successful in creating prosperity.

Yet it was Keynsian policies that led to the housing bubble, and Keynsian policies are not pulling us out. Bush tried them, Obama has tried them, they do not work. All economic data suggests that we enjoy prosperity in SPITE of Keynsian policies and, instead, because of capitalism.

If things have started to go off the rails, it's because mistakes have been made in failing to deal with long-term issues in the name of political expediency & passing the buck.

Blaming government?

Anybody who thinks electing Ron Paul President is a reasonable solution to the problems facing the US is completely deluded.

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. But not for any of the reasons you cite.

 

[Dapper]

I was asked to show how a REDUCTION in taxation and regulation could lead to prosperity.

But it wasn't the case. I asked to show how the US, besides the top ~1% of incomes, has benefited from things like lower taxes and less regulation, and including general Republican ideology, which I don't think was in Germany during the Berlin wall.

All economic data suggests...

Let's see it.

 

[Keef]

Posted in the wrong thread, so pasting it here.


I just watched the beginning of the debate tonight. Romney has shown a glaring misunderstanding of the term "war" as it is defined in our Constitution.

He says that terrorists are not criminals and we don't go after them with criminal law. We go after them with the laws of war. Hate to break it to you Romney, but you're wrong.

War is a condition declared by our Congress, between our country and another country. But terrorists are not a sovereign state. Their amoebic organizations, just groups of people. We can't declare war on them and go after them without infringing the sovereignty of the nations in which they hide, nations which of course we did not declare war on. Therefore, we must deal with the terrorists with criminal law. This is a view that Dr. Paul has stated openly on many occasions.

So there you have it. Romney doesn't understand what "war" is, or how to use it. And people want this guy to be our president?

 

[shmogt]

Lol ya a lot of stuff these people say in the debates are usually wtf, but I think it's more the put on the spot thing. Herman Cain always says insane stuff like the last one where he said he would hand over an entire prison full of terrorist to the terrorist if he had to. Everyone else just said you are crazy we have a 0 negotiations with terrorist policy. Suddenly he said so does he, but this was a rare case and that he was confused. It's just like when the girls were saying he sexually harassed them and he said he didn't and would take a lie detector test and instantly said, but I'm not going to do that because I have no reason too since I did nothing to them lol. This guy is non stop twisting his words and views and people are actually supporting him.

 

[Danoff]

But it wasn't the case. I asked to show how the US...

You definitely did not. Here's what you asked vv, now stop trying to rewrite history (again).

I'll wait for something that shows how lower taxes, less regulation or anything Republicans believe in has actually helped anyone outside of the top 1% of incomes.

The word US is not present.

Let's see it.

Bush Stimulus,Obama Stimulus, Obama Bailout. What happened? Do a little legwork.

 

[Dapper]

You definitely did not. Here's what you asked vv, now stop trying to rewrite history (again).

I understand you like to be thick, but really?
How has lower taxes and less regulation helped anyone outside the the top 1% in the US? You know, the context of the conversation. But Congrats on showing communism doesn't work well in Germany.

The word US is not present.

But I was talking about the US. Germany didn't even have a Republican party during the Berlin wall. We are in the US presidential thread, I posted numerous stats about the US, and included only an American political party. Being thick is not being right. Not to mention I asked several other times about the US and all you've done is nothing but be thick.

Bush Stimulus,Obama Stimulus, Obama Bailout. What happened? Do a little legwork.

The $800B stimulus worked, there was no depression.
Obama's bailout of the automotive industry gained over 80,000 jobs and saved over 2,000,000 existing jobs, and the US will get the money back.

Show something substantial already, and something relevant to this conversation.

 

[Danoff]

I understand you like to be thick, but really?
How has lower taxes and less regulation helped anyone outside the the top 1% in the US? You know, the context of the conversation.

Nope, still doesn't change anything. And the question as worded applied to the conversation. No rewrite necessary.

But I was talking about the US. Germany didn't even have a Republican party during the Berlin wall. We are in the US persedential thread, I posted a numerous stats about the US, and included only a American political party. Being thick is not being right.

Doesn't matter that Germany doesn't have a republic party. Your question was about the economic principles that the republicans give lip service to (but abandon as it suits them). Their "beliefs" have helped many many people in many parts of the world. Not because of the people that pretend to follow them, but because it is rooted in economics.

Again, stop trying to re-categorize your question. I answered it. Now how about addressing my response for a change?

The $800B stimulus worked, there was no depression.

Ok, where to start with that statement. You need to demonstrate the following:

A) That it was the goal of the stimulus to prevent a depression (Obama says no, so you're already dead)
B) That the stimulus prevented a depression (no agreed upon definition of a depression, so good luck)
C) That the stimulus helped compared to no stimulus.
D) You need to explain why other stimuli also failed.

So since Obama had other goals for the stimulus, I wonder how those turned out.... oh wait, we failed to achieve them miserably. Have you already forgotten? The stimulus was supposed to reduce unemployment. It went up dramatically. Obama claimed victory since it would obviously have gone up more.

Obama's bailout of the automotive industry gained over 80,000 jobs and saved over 2,000,000 existing jobs, and the US will get the money back.

...and this is a good thing right? Those jobs needed to go elsewhere, they're a drain on the economy as we pour tax dollars and labor into something that other countries are doing better and that isn't paying off for us. Those jobs are money in a ditch. The US economy desperately needed to restructure, and you're right, the government managed to prevent it from happening... for a while, and at great cost. The money that the government took out of the private sector to fund that would have been used to create other jobs.

Show something substantial already, and something relevant to this conversation.

You first

 

[Dapper]

Danoff, explain how historically low taxes and less governmental regulation, general Republican ideology, has helped most Americans. (stop digressing)

You even said you have data! Show it, enlighten me, do something to justify why your beliefs make sense (a quick hint, they don't make sense).

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, explain how historically low taxes and less governmental regulation, general Republican ideology, has helped most Americans. (stop digressing)

I would love to, seriously. But you need to capitulate. I cannot have an honest conversation with you if you don't abandon your tactics.

 

[Dapper]

I would love to, seriously.

Show how lower taxes and less regulation has helped anyone outside of the ~1% of incomes in the US.

 

[Tornado]

Yeah, I think that about sums up your ability to have a debate with anyone.