Corker the tool

[Guest HvyMtl]

Corker. Sigh. I will tell you who dropped the ball on this.

The Tennessee Democratic Party. They did NOT vet their candidates, as required by their rules. So, they get a supposed Bigot as their candidate. They then pull all Democratic Party support. Too late. So, you had the choice of Corker, or a racist, as unfortunately, the 3rd party candidates did not have a ghost of a chance.

IMHO, the Dems responsible for vetting? They should be out of a job.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352872966' post='845324']
Corker. Sigh. I will tell you who dropped the ball on this.

The Tennessee Democratic Party. They did NOT vet their candidates, as required by their rules. So, they get a supposed Bigot as their candidate. They then pull all Democratic Party support. Too late. So, you had the choice of Corker, or a racist, as unfortunately, the 3rd party candidates did not have a ghost of a chance.

IMHO, the Dems responsible for vetting? They should be out of a job.
[/quote]

Like the GOP vetted all of their idiots that stuck their feet in their mouths in the last year all over the US.

- OS Edited November 14, 2012 by OhShoot

[jughead]

seems like i read some where several years ago that since the time of george washington congress has spent about 25 percent more money than they had coming in every year. if so raising taxes will NEVER do any good until we change the mind set in d.c.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

[url="http://uneditedpolitics.com/2012/11/11/tennessee-senator-bob-corker-interview-on-fox-news-sunday-key-to-fiscal-reform-is-medicare-111112/"]http://uneditedpolit...edicare-111112/[/url]

This video is trimmed but contains the sound clip that glenn didn't like which prompted the thread. Perhaps this is the main gist or perhaps other useful stuff got edited out.

That site also has a corker telephone interview clip done a few days earlier on fox which, though on a different day and long distance on the phone from chatt, says exactly the same thing using exactly the same words and sentences. So perhaps that is all the dude has to say on the matter, and asking again would only trigger mindless playback retrieval of the same words and sentences. Of course the advantage of the phone interview was that one need not be annoyed by the fella's visage and megalomanic grand hand gestures somewhat reminiscent of Al Gore or that annoying grandiose Allen Casey (local failed businessman and jack of all trades clown).

So anyway, gots to somehow cut spending and raise revenue regardless whether corker is a tool and regardless whether he has any useful ideas.

I think the best solution is just "go off the cliff". Let ALL the bush tax cuts expire. Before the bush tax cuts I didn't enjoy paying a few thousand extra every year, but we were very close to a balanced budget. If corker raises rich folks tax it ain't enough to matter. If thats the gist of his reform it is laughable merely because it ain't even a drop in the bucket.

If we sunset all the cuts then it would be enough to make a difference with em reaming the rich, the middle class, and also the poor. Then if they could also drastically cut spending back to clinton era levels, maybe we'd have some remote chance of sorting it out. Letting ALL the cuts sunset would be the antithesis of class warfare. Shared sacrifice.

The other political advantage is if the R's can blame it on D's, there would be lots more R votes next time.A fella will get pissed about his taxes getting raised regardless of his income, race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

[Glenn]

The problem is spending will never get cut. The fiscal cliff spending cuts are 55 billion and they act like that would be the end of the world.

[monkeylizard]

Glenn is right about that. This is a visual of the budget cut debacle from last year that led to the super commitee and then the "fiscal cliff" cutoff date. We're about to crash and Congress is debating about whether we should have 31 or 32 psi in the left front tire.


[img]http://www.annmonteith.com/ann_monteith_polynomics_blog_files/cartoon_040511_a.jpg[/img]

[RobertNashville]

The only real fiscal cliff is the one no one wants to deal with or even discuss and it's Trillion$ deficits for years and spending 150% of what they take in PLUS all the unfunded multi-trillion$ obligations currently looming plus worthless money that the world will no longer accept as payment.

This January 1 "fiscal cliff" is a problem only because the alleged cuts and very real tax increases have been done without any real consideration for what should/needs to actually be cut.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Ok, it is simply proven a bad idea to CUT taxes AND GO to war. So, the next time, and sadly, there will be a next time, we go to war, lets make sure the politicians have a plan to pay for it, and they get held accountable to uphold that plan.

FYI: The last 4 years you have paid LESS Federal Taxes than you ever did in your life time. Yet, the deficit expanded faster than it ever did in your life time.

Let the Bush Tax cuts lapse. And find programs that are not supposed to be in the Federal Budget, and cut them. Find the pork barrel items, and block them.

[RobertNashville]

It is never a bad time to cut taxes...I believe history shows that, at least in the long term, tax cuts increase revenues; tax increases decrease them. JFK knew this and followed through with it as did Reagan.

[E4 No More]

[quote name='Garufa' timestamp='1352765432' post='844536']
Why do Republicans continue to vote for this ignoramus?
[/quote]I didn't!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352909336' post='845473']
It is never a bad time to cut taxes...I believe history shows that, at least in the long term, tax cuts increase revenues; tax increases decrease them. JFK knew this and followed through with it as did Reagan.
[/quote]

By that logic we should decrease all taxes, fees and tariffs to zero. Zero taxes would obviously increase federal revenue to at least infinity dollars! Maybe even more than infinity dollars! On second thought, I was joking but with zero taxes the gov would run entirely on printed money, so eventually the dollar supply really would tend toward infinity.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Laffer-Curve.svg/500px-Laffer-Curve.svg.png[/img]
A "common sense" concept which might have truth is the Laffer Curve. It varies according to each individual economy and time frame. AFAIK the curve has never been precisely numerically solved for the USA or anywhere else but the general concept makes seat-of-the-pants logic that few people argue against.

Judged pragmatically by results alone, one might propose that the Kennedy tax cuts and Reagan tax cuts were both enacted when we happened to be on the high side of the maxima for that time and place, and that the tax cuts either moved closer to the maxima on the high side-- Or if the new tax rates under-shot the maxima, at least the new rates landed closer to the maxima on the low side, than the original high-side delta before the tax cuts?

Judged pragmatically by results alone, one might propose that the tax rates near the end of the clinton era were fairly close to the maxima for that time period, because things were far from perfect but we were at least "by the skin of our teeth" almost balancing the budget.

The early 21st century brush wars and burst dot-com bubble most likely warped the laffer curve in some fashion. New war spending would have been both inflationary and stimulatory (in a keynsian sense), wheras the blood in the streets from dot-com fortunes melted to nothing would have been deflationary forces, boiling off previously misallocated capital faster than spilled liquid nitrogen on a hot summer day.

So perhaps the clinton era tax rates would have moved in relationship with the new laffer maxima, though it is anyone's guess whether new events would have moved the clinton rates closer to or farther from the maxima of the changed curve.

However, judged pragmatically by results, one might propose that the bush tax cuts moved us farther from the maxima on the low side, regardless whether the clinton rates were on the high side or low side of the early-2000 curve maxima. Otherwise the revenue vs spending wouldn't have gone so seriously out of whack, and we would have had a more sustained recovery from the 2001 recession. As it was, the recovery was anemic and only lasted a few years. If the bush tax cuts "long term" raised revenue (neglecting real inflation), then the definition of "long term" must be "up to but not including 4 years". We actually never recovered fully from the 2001 recession before the 2006 decline tailed into the 2008 depression, so the benefit of the bush tax cut, if any, was weak and short-lived.

Not only did the bush tax cuts fail to long-term increase inflation-adjusted revenue, but when we started sliding back into the pit, 2006-2008, the R's and D's cooperated to "invest" many billions of supply-side tax cuts in the form of tax rebates, which did nothing to raise the economy and raise federal revenue. It only added to the fed deficit and fueled additional inflation. And then in 2009 to present, the R's and D's cooperated to cut taxes even more in attempt to dig us out of the hole, which was even less effective than the bush tax cuts, and little more effective than the 2006-2008 tax cuts. Reminiscent of the old joke, "We're losing money on every sale but we'll make it up in volume."

It looks to me a case of sustained overdose of stimulants in the form of insanely irresponsible deficit spending PLUS tax cuts PLUS "nearly free new money from air" created by every new bank loan, fueled by "almost zero-percent interest" keynsian stimulus from the federal reserve. And the results look kinda like a methamphetamine addict who has been taking so much speed for such a long time that he can't stay awake even after taking near-fatal daily doses of meth. Rather than detox, the poor fella just keeps shooting up more and more speed just hoping to gain a big enough burst of energy to go out and score more meth. Homeostasis gone horribly awry.

So we have TWO instances, Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, which on-the-surface seem to have improved gov revenue, and NUMEROUS tax cuts since Y2K, none of which long-term improved inflation-adjusted revenue. Which would seem consistent with the proposition that tax cuts help if you are on the high side of the laffer curve, but that tax cuts hurt if you are on the low side of the laffer curve.

I don't want to be misunderstood-- I'm not a tax-and-spend guy. I despise tax and would rather pay no tax at all. But the cruelest tax of all is high inflation and economic instability, and so would grudgingly rather pay tax than suffer from the economic consequences of insane federal budget imbalances. OF COURSE spending must also be curtailed. Ain't against spending cuts.

As a final comment in this rant, one must suspect the conclusion that the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts long-term improved the economy and increased federal revenue. The tax cuts had short term keynsian stimulus value, which also pumped subsequent recessions, inflations, and stag-flations.

Full long-term accounting of the Kennedy and Reagan cuts MIGHT validate them beneficial, or it could possibly be merely a short-term bookkeeping anomaly. The Kennedy and Reagan cuts keynsian-overheated the economy for a few years, resulting in both real growth and the inflation-induced illusion of growth, but the whole time nearly half of the much vaunted federal revenue increases were in the form of social security tax. The SS taxes were SPENT like free-and-clear revenue, but in actuality they were LOANS TO THE GOV backed by giant bonds mildewing in a filing cabinet somewhere, which long-term must be paid back with interest, on the backs of the next generation. If one makes the long-term calculation including the awesome debt incurred by spending all that SS tax money, possibly even the famous Kennedy and Reagan cuts made things worse in the long run?

In summary, though I hate the idea of tax hikes, evidence points to us being WELL BELOW the laffer maxima, and because the Clinton rates were higher, returning to those rates would most likely get us closer to the laffer maxima, though possibly still on the low side of the maxima. And returning to the clinton rates is easy as falling off a log-- All you have to do is gridlock congress and it will happen automatically. And such a "tax reform" would not be class warfare because it would hike everybody's taxes. It would be one small step in detoxing the meth addict. However the meth addict likes the meth and he fears kicking the habit because it will make him very sick for quite awhile. Even if the addict voluntarily commits himself to the detox ward, after the meth stops he will scream in pain and demand immediate discharge. So he can go out and score some more meth to make the pain go away.

[RobertNashville]

Lester, you make great posts but I don't have time to read a book on a forum.

We have to have taxes to fund the legitimate functions of government; I'm not nor do I think anyone is saying we shoudl have no taxes (of course the U.S. operated with no income tax for many, many decades) but history has shown us that lowering taxes increases economic activity; raising does exactly the opposite.

Moreover, except for what it absolutely has to have to perform its vital functions, it is simply evil and immoral for a government to confiscate wealth from those who produce it...for that reason alone and regardless of what taxes do to the economy, taxes should be as low and as fairly imposed as possible.

Edited November 14, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352923879' post='845647']
Lester, you make great posts but I don't have time to read a book on a forum.

We have to have taxes to fund the legitimate functions of government; I'm not nor do I think anyone is saying we shoudl have no taxes (of course the U.S. operated with no income tax for many, many decades) but history has shown us that lowering taxes increases economic activity; raising does exactly the opposite.

Moreover, except for what it absolutely has to have to perform its vital functions, it is simply evil and immoral for a government to confiscate wealth from those who produce it...for that reason alone and regardless of what taxes do to the economy, taxes should be as low and as fairly imposed as possible.
[/quote]

Thanks Robert

I agree taxes should be as low and equitable possible. Of course that is a difficult calculation we probably don't currently know enough to perform. But I agree completely.

If tax cuts always improve economic activity (which is just another form of keynsian stimulus when paired with deficit spending), then after the numerous and deep tax cuts in the 21st century, why does the economy suck so bad? There have been at least five giant tax cuts but things have been getting worse! In order to be considered valid, shouldn't a theory at least somewhat match reality?

Edited November 14, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Taxation isn't the only problem, either. The Fed playing with the money supply, inflation, etc, contribute to
the problem, Lester. Robert's statement about Kennedy and Reagan was exactly right. They knew taxation
was hurting the economy and when they reduced taxes, it , in both cases spurred the economy upward.

A problem right now, is taxation is being lied about. The are not Bush Tax cuts that will expire. They are tax
rates that will increase. That Bush thing is just political propaganda, but call them what you wish, like the media
brainwashes some of us.

A new tax policy drastically reducing rates on all people equally, made permanent, would light a fire in the
economy and allow businesses to make long term decisions and bring businesses back to this country. It
would also reduce the pressure on pay to employees due to decreased cost of living. I think there are more
benefits, but I'll let someone more knowledgeable explain.

I think this has been discussed a thousand times, but if it needs it, so be it.

[E4 No More]

I agree Lester's posts are great, but too long!

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Lester Weevils' timestamp='1352924479' post='845652']
Thanks Robert

I agree taxes should be as low and equitable possible. Of course that is a difficult calculation we probably don't currently know enough to perform at the moment. But I agree completely.

If tax cuts always improve economic activity (which is just another form of keynsian stimulus when paired with deficit spending), then after the numerous and deep tax cuts in the 21st century, why does the economy suck so bad? There have been at least five giant tax cuts but things have been getting worse! In order to be considered valid, shouldn't a theory at least somewhat match reality?
[/quote]Oh...maybe spending money you don't have...printing worthless money...mountains of regulations....just lowering taxes while doing everything else wrong is may help but all those other issues are going to blunt the effect.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I like Lester's posts, probably better than most because he makes me think about issues more deeply, even if we
disagree. Keep it up, Lester, you old weevil.

Edited November 15, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest Lester Weevils]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1352924837' post='845657']
Taxation isn't the only problem, either. The Fed playing with the money supply, inflation, etc, contribute to
the problem, Lester. Robert's statement about Kennedy and Reagan was exactly right. They knew taxation
was hurting the economy and when they reduced taxes, it , in both cases spurred the economy upward.

A problem right now, is taxation is being lied about. The are not Bush Tax cuts that will expire. They are tax
rates that will increase. That Bush thing is just political propaganda, but call them what you wish, like the media
brainwashes some of us.

A new tax policy drastically reducing rates on all people equally, made permanent, would light a fire in the
economy and allow businesses to make long term decisions and bring businesses back to this country. It
would also reduce the pressure on pay to employees due to decreased cost of living. I think there are more
benefits, but I'll let someone more knowledgeable explain.

I think this has been discussed a thousand times, but if it needs it, so be it.
[/quote]
[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352925190' post='845661']
Oh...maybe spending money you don't have...printing worthless money...mountains of regulations....just lowering taxes while doing everything else wrong is may help but all those other issues are going to blunt the effect.
[/quote]

Thanks 6.8 and Robert

Useless to elaborate much because already mentioned in the previous posted excessively-long tome. You could re-read that if you can stand it.

Deficit spending is inflationary keynsian stimulus. Supply-side tax cuts are inflationary keynsian stimulus. "Excessive money created from nothing" which happens on each fractional-reserve-banking loan fueled by unrealistically low-interest-rate Fed Reserve money are inflationary keynsian stimulus. What goes up must come down. Its not the fall that kills you, its the sudden stop at the bottom.

The "perceived success" of Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts are merely proof that SOMETIMES keynsian stimulus really does increase economic activity. But the abject failure of the bush tax cuts, the pelosi-bush 2006-2008 tax cuts, and the pelosi-obama 2008-2012 tax cuts shows that SOMETIMES keynsian stimulus doesn't work at all. SOMETIMES fed reserve easy money keynsian stimulus works, and SOMETIMES it don't. SOMETIMES deficit spending keynsian stimulus from wars and massive public works projects will work, and SOMETIMES it won't.

That is the analogy to the meth addict. The first dose works like gangbusters. Then over the days, months and years it becomes decreasingly effective until it doesn't even work good enough to keep the dude awake. The 1970's stagflation was a keynsian overdose KICKED OFF by the kennedy tax cuts. The meth addict had been popping low doses since WWII but the increased doses from Kennedy, thru Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, eventually the stuff didn't work any more.

Reagan increased the dose with continued accelerated deficit spending and a tax cut, helped by a "partial detox" performed by the early reagan recession and Paul Volcker's cruel bitter medicine. So the meth addict ran on a lower maintenance dose thru Bush Sr. and Clinton. But the doses have been steadily increasing again since G.W. Bush into Obama, and once again the meth don't work any more. Time for detox.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Sorry, got distracted again. Of course spending needs cut, but 6.8, what new economic miracle would new tax cuts perform, if all the last 10 years of tax cuts performed nary a miracle at all? It just sounds to me like a meth addict saying, "Ain't nothing wrong with me that more and better speed won't cure."

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You call the last ten years having been some kind of tax cut? They could have dropped the marginal tax rates
to have flat tax rates before I would have noticed much of a tax cut. Any time you have a scheme that is totally
progressive and call it fair, there is a problem. Our budget problems stem from class envy and wealth redistribution
for the last, well since the income tax code came into existence. The crap came from a certain commie, back in time,
who knew it would be the wrecking of any economy if implemented. It never should have been anything other than
a flat low income or consumption tax and nothing else. It has allowed elected politicians to raise or lower, depending
on party affiliation. That's nonsense. It breeds instability in our economy and causes the ebbs and flows just like
the Fed causes.

Lester, it would cause what I said earlier. Businesses would be able to plan and would possibly bring businesses
back from overseas if they saw stability at home. It would lower cost of living immediately for every person in this
country overnight. It would hold Congress more accountable to it's constituents.

Those so-called Bush Tax Cuts were only a small reduction and were only good in intentions. The problem is the
damned tax code, itself.

No one can plan with a moving target. Families or businesses, only government. What else can I say?

How about making our government live within a budget? You and I do. Give them an inch and they take a mile
every single time.