Presidential Election: 2012

[Danoff]

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

I cannot have an honest conversation with you if you don't abandon your tactics.

.

 

[Dapper]

I would love to, seriously.

Obviously you can't.

 

[Danoff]

Obviously you can't.

Seriously, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Dapper]

But you need to capitulate.

All you did was show communism wasn't liked by most Germans. It has nothing to do with Republican ideology, specifically taxes and regulations. But great job showing communism failed in Getmany.

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

 

[Danoff]

All you did was show communism wasn't liked by most Germans.

It's not a popularity contest. On one side of the wall, economic prosperity, on the other side, poverty and desperation (to get to the other side). It has less to do with Germany than Soviet Russia, which demonstrated to the world once and for all that government regulation, intervention, confiscation, manipulation, and control will always destroy economic progress. Germany was simply one place where the contrast was striking.

It is a phenomenal example of how deregulation and decreased government footprint results in economic prosperity for ALL (not just 1%).

Respond to this post before changing the subject.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's not a popularity contest. On one side of the wall, economic prosperity,

And David Hasselhoff. See, it is related to the US.

 

[Dapper]

It has less to do with Germany than Soviet Russia, which demonstrated to the world once and for all that government regulation, intervention, confiscation, manipulation, and control will always destroy economic progress. Germany was simply one place where the contrast was striking.

No it didn't because the US was doing better with more government intervention, the only time in history when the US was financially stable (roughly 1930-80). Russian Communism won't work is what it demonstrated.

It is a phenomenal example of how deregulation and decreased government footprint results in economic prosperity for ALL (not just 1%).

It is a great example of communism failing, and democracy prospering. 👍

Now back to the original point, where is anything showing lower taxes and less regulation has helped most Americans?

 

[Danoff]

No it didn't because the US was doing better with more government intervention, the only time in history when the US was financially stable (roughly 1930-80).

Please establish this claim with... something.

Russian Communism won't work is what it demonstrated.

There's nothing special about the Russian variety.

It is a great example of communism failing, and democracy prospering. 👍

This isn't about democracy vs. communism. This is about capitalism vs communism. Don't confuse the communist political structure with the communist economic structure.

Now back to the original point, where is anything showing lower taxes and less regulation has helped most Americans?

1) That's not the original point
2) We need to deal with this first.
3) What time period would you like to talk about and what time period would you like to compare against?
4) Demonstrate (using data) which of the two time periods had greater regulation and taxes (include all types of taxes, not just personal income).

 

[Dapper]

1) That's not the original point

Yes is it was. What other Republican party would I be talking about in the US presidential thread?

3) What time period would you like to talk about and what time period would you like to compare against?

Regan to present vs all of US history.

4) Demonstrate (using data) which of the two time periods had greater regulation and taxes (include all types of taxes, not just personal income).

You can find the deregulatory legislation Regan introduced, and every president since if you want. I've posted it before. Tax rates are readily available, and I've posted them in the last day also.

 

[Biggles]

Danoff your arguments are simply absurd. You are pretending there are only two choices: communism or completely unregulated laissez faire capitalism. (This is remiscent of the Famine Paradigm expressed in the Libyan debate: decisive foreign policy should consist of EITHER bombing the crap out of your enemies OR doing nothing at all.)

In fact, between those two extremes, there are any number of different choices that would fall under the description of a “mixed economy” – one in which free enterprise flourishes alongside certain government regulations, a commitment to social welfare, & a progressive taxation system. All the Western democracies have had some variation of this mixed economy for at least the last 70 or 80 years, including, incidentally, the Germany that people were escaping to on the Western side of the Berlin Wall .

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.

Keynesian theory is, of course, quite complicated, but generally put, Keynes advocated countercyclical fiscal policies which would never have supported the actions leading up to the housing bubble & financial crisis.

Blaming government?

Yes, of course, bad government policy is partly to blame. Too-low interest rates, over-spending on "defense", unwarranted tax cuts, too expensive entitlement programs, tax policies designed to unrealistically promote home-ownership etc. etc. A very significant factor was a de-regulated financial system that allowed some of the particpants to pursue paper profits from which they themselves directly benefited, but which ultimately dramatically undermined the solvency of the institutions they were supposed to be serving.

All economic data suggests that we enjoy prosperity in SPITE of Keynsian policies and, instead, because of capitalism

The “economic data” doesn’t show anything that would justify this over-simplistic, sweeping conclusion. In fact, there is wide & continuing disagreement among professional economists. All that can be said for sure is that what actually has occurred in the US & the other western democracies over the last 70 or 80 years, for better or for worse, is most definitely NOT the result of strict adherence to the principles of unfettered capitalism.

But at heart Danoff, you’re not interested in “economic data” or any other kind of data. You’re in thrall to a single-minded ideology - a belief system that prevents you from accepting the complexities & contradictions evident in human interaction, forces you to take simplistic, dogmatic positions on every subject that crops up, & prevents you from looking at reality with any kind of sensible objectivity.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Allow me to simplify:

Temporal coincidence does not = proof.

For example:

Dapper's chart shows high taxes = high employment as much as this chart shows a lack of pirates = global warming.

So I'd like to award you with the key to the universe...ownage is all I have to say. That was too funny

Also Shmogt who agreed with Paul in the debate the other night?

 

[A2K78]

anybody who say or believes that the stimulus prevented a further economic collapse is really dreaming. The stimulus did something alright, and the only thing it did was temporarily delay what will the inevitable while fattening the pockets of certain individual.

In the end truth is american is technically in a depression, its just that nobody want to be truthful and declare it, the exception being ron paul.

 

[Dapper]

anybody who say or believes that the stimulus prevented a further economic collapse is really dreaming.

The evidence shows we need to do more of these sorts of policy interventions.

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/the-recovery-act-worked-in-a-few-easy-charts/

My dreams are more real than your reality.

So I'd like to award you with the key to the universe...ownage is all I have to say. That was too funny

You understand that Republicans say a higher tax rate will result in less growth or jobs? Well the graph shows that to be untrue.

 

[Keef]

GDP growth distorted artificially high by the immediate effects of inflation, plus the fact that government and military spending is included in GDP. The more the government wastes, the more GDP goes up. If we were involved in a world war right now and were producing supplies for the war effort, our GDP (as the government calculates it) would be astronomical.

 

[Biggles]

anybody who say or believes that the stimulus prevented a further economic collapse is really dreaming.

Instead of dreaming, why not actually take the trouble to read what a variety of economists have to say about it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html

GDP growth distorted artificially high by the immediate effects of inflation, plus the fact that government and military spending is included in GDP. The more the government wastes spends, the more GDP goes up. If we were involved in a world war right now and were producing supplies for the war effort, our GDP (as the government calculates it) would be astronomical.

That's the point of a "stimulus": a temporary spending measure to goose the economy. Some of what the government spends is certainly wasted.

Again, your "world war" example is inappropriate: the goal is to spend it on worthwhile infrastructure projects that will contribute to the long-term efficiency & prosperity of the US economy.

 

[ChaosStar79]

GDP growth distorted artificially high by the immediate effects of inflation, plus the fact that government and military spending is included in GDP. The more the government wastes, the more GDP goes up. If we were involved in a world war right now and were producing supplies for the war effort, our GDP (as the government calculates it) would be astronomical.

That would mean that we had a manufacturing base again.

Sorry, had to be said.

 

[Keef]

That would mean that we had a manufacturing base again.

A manufacturing base akin to what Soviet Russia had during the Cold War, where most of what got done in the country was to benefit the government.

We all know how that turned out.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/the-recovery-act-worked-in-a-few-easy-charts/

My dreams are more real than your reality.

You understand that Republicans say a higher tax rate will result in less growth or jobs? Well the graph shows that to be untrue.

Wrong, I agreed with him not based on who the user may support, that assumption is yours to carry to the bank and makes you look stupid. The point is you from time to time don't show the most unbiased facts yourself as well as others here. However, with comments like the above you seem to think otherwise. My point for giving him praise was, any desktop jokey with nothing better to do than argue can make up a graph, unless the research and backing for it shows where the info is coming from to prove it, the graph is nothing but a moot waste of effort. That is what the user did, not prove republican over dem or vice versa. I've asked if you were dem on a few political threads and though you distance yourself, you don't do any favors keeping up with that distance.

 

[Biggles]

A manufacturing base akin to what Soviet Russia had during the Cold War, where most of what got done in the country was to benefit the government.

"... most of what got done in the country was to benefit the government." You express yourself so poorly, it's hard even to make out what you are trying to say.

Again with the the comparisons to Communism. As far as I can tell, nobody has advanced a position advocating Communism - so perhaps you & Danoff can give up this pointless & dishonest straw man argument. All the western democracies have cultivated a mixed economy to varying degrees. It has resulted in a general standard of living in these countries unprecedented in human history. That is a demonstrable fact. The presumption that things would have been better if, instead, there had been a completely unregulated free-enterprise system with no progressive taxation system & no government programs to assist the poor, the sick or old is, on the other hand, just a presumption.

 

[Keef]

I can't argue with you. It's obvious you have little understanding of the types of governments in question, how they operate, and how they evolve or devolve into other types. I'll let somebody else direct toward the information you need.

 

[Dapper]

My point for giving him praise was, any desktop jokey with nothing better to do than argue can make up a graph, unless the research and backing for it shows where the info is coming from to prove it, the graph is nothing but a moot waste of effort.

Here is the link with graph in question.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...on-in-one-graph/2011/05/19/AGh9Z1oH_blog.html
"Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics and Tax Policy Center"

 

[Biggles]

I can't argue with you. It's obvious you have little understanding of the types of governments in question, how they operate, and how they evolve or devolve into other types. I'll let somebody else direct toward the information you need.

"the types of governments in question, how they operate, and how they evolve or devolve into other types." What does this even mean? Your posts invariably show a lack of in-depth understanding about libertarian ideas, let alone the counter-arguments. Instead of spending time making thousands of posts on GTPlanet, why don't you try doing a little reading.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Here is the link with graph in question.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...on-in-one-graph/2011/05/19/AGh9Z1oH_blog.html
"Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics and Tax Policy Center"

Point is use common sense and show all your proof from the get go and then you wont have me questioning you as I do others as well.

No one person is just going to agree with what you say and run with it. That would be stupid on the listeners part.

 

[Keef]

What does this even mean?

What the hell do you think it means? It means you should start using the quote button instead of doing it the hard way. You have defied human nature by seeking to quote people the difficult way.

Anyways, this video, which I assume you've seen before in various places on this forum, outlines three basic forms of government, of which there are a few variations, and how these governments transition to other types, typically devolving through corruption of power, war, and other naughty things.

 

[Dapper]

Point is...

Three post with three different points all conveniently changed once I showed you really have no point. So the point is what again? FK's faux graph had nothing to do with what I said, the information you needed to see to make the info not moot was really there the whole time, and this latest post of yours has nothing to do with anything since you think I don't use common sense yet you have been making no sense (as it is clearly outlined here ^).

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Three post with three different points all conveniently changed once I showed you really have no point. So the point is what again? FK's faux graph had nothing to do with what I said, the information you needed to see to make the info not moot was really there the whole time, and this latest post of yours has nothing to do with anything since you think I don't use common sense yet you have been making no sense (as it is clearly outlined here ^).

You haven't clearly outlined anything...he wasn't showing a republican side to his faux graph. Rather just showing how easy it is for someone to make a graph and thus make it seem like it correlates. Hence the reasoning behind making a sarcastic graph, but that however seems beyond you. Show me how my point has changed? It has been the same with you since this thread started, first you could show facts on the EPA, then you couldn't show facts on the monetary system and economical ideals. For not showing where you were getting your supposed "facts" I pressured you to show us so we could actually learn and not have to take things third hand as if it was first. My point and argument has been the same from the get go, show some facts to your argument or just not contribute to the thread at all and save us time. Why have people ask you after you start an argument when you can just show us up front where your facts are from?

 

[Dapper]

then you couldn't show facts on the monetary system and economical ideals. For not showing where you were getting your supposed "facts" I pressured you to show us so we could actually learn and not have to take things third hand as if it was first.

This is your problem. I post stuff and you just ignore it, then say I didn't post anything. Your "pressure" resulted in me re-posting a link.

 

[Biggles]

Anyways, this video, which I assume you've seen before in various places on this forum, outlines three basic forms of government, of which there are a few variations, and how these governments transition to other types, typically devolving through corruption of power, war, and other naughty things.

Yes, unfortunately I do realize that this rather pitiful piece of propaganda is the kind of thing you're referring to. A potted 10 minute version of “the history of politics” that is so condensed, so over-simplified, so lacking in factual reference & so biased as to be totally meaningless.

Democracies “devolve” into mob rule? I don’t see mob rule in the UK, or Canada, or Australia.

A republic prevents oligarchy & mob rule? How about the Republic of Argentina with its constitution of 1853 closely modeled on the US Constitution? It was followed more than a century of revolving coups, popular uprisings, corruption, rule by oligarchic elites, military dictatorships, right & left wing terrorism, extra-judicial arrests, torture & executions. Take a look around the world today & see how many so-called republics are in a similar state.

Or just look at the history of the United States. I’ve already shown how the adoption of the US Constitution didn’t prevent the continuation of slavery for another 90 odd years, it didn’t prevent the destructive violence of the Civil War & it didn’t prevent another 90 years of institutionalized racism.

Here’s what I would suggest: instead of immersing yourself in these cheap polemics, why don’t you try reading some actual history? Why don’t you try reading some of the serious thinkers on libertarian principles: Rosseau, Locke & Henry George. Read Hayek, Rothbard & Nozick. And then, so that you understand some of the opposing ideas, read Hume, Marx & Engels, Bukunin, Russel, Keynes & Rawls.

Then come back & tell me if you still find that little “American Government” video so compelling.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This is your problem. I post stuff and you just ignore it, then say I didn't post anything. Your "pressure" resulted in me re-posting a link.

Yes Dapper everyone here ignores you, I agree with this message

 

[Danoff]

Yes is it was. What other Republican party would I be talking about in the US presidential thread?

Referring to the US republican party in the US presidential thread doesn't actually change anything. Go back and re-read. You'll see that I am correct and be moved to recant the last 3 pages of this thread.

Regan to present vs all of US history.


You can find the deregulatory legislation Regan introduced, and every president since if you want. I've posted it before. Tax rates are readily available, and I've posted them in the last day also.

Please cite them here as requested. Thanks.

Danoff your arguments are simply absurd. You are pretending there are only two choices: communism or completely unregulated laissez faire capitalism.

Wrong. I didn't read the rest of your post because you started with this. Quote exactly where I make this mistake. I know you'd LIKE for me to be this strawman. You'd LIKE for me to fall into your neatly defined category, but there is nothing to support this. You have misunderstood.

Cite me directly.