election 2012

[Belthus]

Romney was not a uniquely evil presence at Bain. It was a vampire squid before and after Romney. Romney is pro-vampire-squid (as is Obama to a lesser extent), and his Presidency would be likely to help vampire squids suck more out of the US economy.

You mean the vampire squids that pay 50% of the US debt? Really, Im tired of argmuments in politics that do nothing but call names and are completely emotion driven.

There wouldn't be debt if they paid their fair share of taxes. Lowering tax revenues since Reagan have resulted in huge deficits. Thanks almost entirely to Romney's party.

The vampire squids are responsible for the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. I believe that it was necessary to bail out the financial sector, but it should have come at a cost that would deter future recklessness. Take over the firms, scour their books and computers, send the worst offenders to prison, rescue the financial system, and then sell off the firms. However, Obama never even considered such moves because he is almost as much a creature of Wall Street as Republicans.

I will thank you not to characterize my position as "completely emotionally driven." I am well read on the subject. Personal insults will not win a debate.

[OldTrees]

Romney was not a uniquely evil presence at Bain. It was a vampire squid before and after Romney. Romney is pro-vampire-squid (as is Obama to a lesser extent), and his Presidency would be likely to help vampire squids suck more out of the US economy.

You mean the vampire squids that pay 50% of the US debt? Really, Im tired of argmuments in politics that do nothing but call names and are completely emotion driven.

There wouldn't be debt if they paid their fair share of taxes. Lowering tax revenues since Reagan have resulted in huge deficits. Thanks almost entirely to Romney's party.

Debt was caused by the incentives for politicians to spend more than revenue. The politician that gives more back to their constituents tends to have an edge getting elected. The existence of debt is independent of the amount of revenue.

[BluePriest]

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

The vampire squids are responsible for the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. I believe that it was necessary to bail out the financial sector, but it should have come at a cost that would deter future recklessness. Take over the firms, scour their books and computers, send the worst offenders to prison, rescue the financial system, and then sell off the firms. However, Obama never even considered such moves because he is almost as much a creature of Wall Street as Republicans.

Who are the vampires? The people that pay 50% or the people that pay nothing.

[Belthus]

Debt was caused by the incentives for politicians to spend more than revenue. The politician that gives more back to their constituents tends to have an edge getting elected. The existence of debt is independent of the amount of revenue.

Here is a breakdown:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

It is mathematically absurd to say that debt and revenues are independent. Debt is the sum of deficits, and deficits are revenues minus spending. Both revenue and spending matter.

Some people (mostly Republicans) say that revenue doesn't matter because they have an ideological preference for smaller government. They hoped that shrinking revenues would force the kind of spending they didn't like to go down. But they were (1) completely unwilling to lower the kind of spending they did like (e.g., "defense"), and (2) were completely unwilling to say that they want to abolish Social Security and Medicare (which they do want). They have demonstrated a willingness to risk the creditworthiness of the US government by tying the debt ceiling votes to their ideological preference for cutting social spending. Any honest accounting cannot conclude "a pox on both their houses." The Republican Party is by far more fiscally irresponsible, and the primary beneficiaries of their tax policies have been the wealthy and the FIRE sectors (finance, insurance, and real estate).

[Belthus]

Who are the vampires? The people that pay 50% or the people that pay nothing.

The term is "vampire squid." Google it. It's a must-read article by Matt Taibbi.

Your attack on poor people is a false dichotomy fallacy. Even if you could demonstrate that "people that pay nothing" were parasites, such a conclusion would have zero bearing on whether Bain and similar firms are parasites. It is logically possible for both to be parasites, neither parasites, or one a parasite and the other not. So your argument is poorly constructed.

[OldTrees]

Debt was caused by the incentives for politicians to spend more than revenue. The politician that gives more back to their constituents tends to have an edge getting elected. The existence of debt is independent of the amount of revenue.

It is mathematically absurd to say that debt and revenues are independent. Debt is the sum of deficits, and deficits are revenues minus spending. Both revenue and spending matter.

You missed my point. I was saying politicians have an incentive to spend more than revenue. This incentive exists independent of the amount of revenue. Therefore debt is independent of revenue.

[BluePriest]

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

[Belthus]

You missed my point. I was saying politicians have an incentive to spend more than revenue. This incentive exists independent of the amount of revenue. Therefore debt is independent of revenue.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The incentive exists at every level of revenue. That does not mean that debt is independent of revenue. There are many incentives and motivations, and they can offset each other.

[russianspy1234]

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

how little is an unfair share?

[OldTrees]

You missed my point. I was saying politicians have an incentive to spend more than revenue. This incentive exists independent of the amount of revenue. Therefore debt is independent of revenue.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The incentive exists at every level of revenue. That does not mean that debt is independent of revenue. There are many incentives and motivations, and they can offset each other.

Perhaps I am ignorant. What political incentive is strong enough to offset the systematic political advantage of bribing ones constituents? It fear the amount of debt will fluctuate but will not disappear in the long run.

[Belthus]

Perhaps I am ignorant. What political incentive is strong enough to offset the systematic political advantage of bribing ones constituents? It fear the amount of debt will fluctuate but will not disappear in the long run.

Tell me more about "the systematic political advantage of bribing ones constituents." Consistently Republican states are poorer than consistently Democratic states. The red states on average also get more federal dollars per capita.

"Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In"

Red states were more likely to get a bigger cut of federal spending. Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16.

So why do they vote for Republicans? Obviously there is a lot more going on than wealthy people voting for Republicans and poor people voting for Democrats. Non-economic wedge issues are part of it. There is also propaganda, which can get people to vote against their economic interests. (See this article for examples.)

[Belthus]

how little is an unfair share?

15%. That is the rate for capital gains. That's why people like Romney and Warren Buffett pay a lower percentage than their secretaries do.