TomAiello

Why do we need to get blood from anyone? How about we stop spending all that blood, so it doesn't need to be extracted from people? You're viewing the economics in a frozen time frame. Over time, a broad wealth distribution correlates with an increase in overall societal wealth, because it encourages new production. So, which do you want, a bigger pie, with larger slices for all, or a smaller pie, with perfectly equal, but small, pieces for everyone? Are you so jealous of the other guy's big piece of pie that you'd be willing to take a smaller one yourself (and give your kids a smaller one) if only you could knock his down a bit? What kind of crazy reasoning is that? -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

When you say 'give up' what does that mean? Reduce their taxes by 15%. If you could guarantee everyone a minimum income of 50k/yr, but had to reduce taxes on the top earners to do so, would you do it? Or is your jealousy so great that you must punish those evil rich people, even if it means you hurt the poor, as well? I don't expect you to answer that question honestly here. I'm just asking you to consider it privately, and candidly examine your own motivations. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's true, provided the rich are willing to pay much higher tax rates. If they aren't, then wealth disparity is indeed a problem. We can't have it both ways. ??? Would you rather live in a country where everyone makes $1 per year (perfect income equality), or one where the lowest earner makes $100k/yr, but the highest makes $100,000k/yr (higher income, but with much less equity)? Trying to tear down the top earners simply because they make more than you is just pettiness. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

OK, I don't know of it, but a questiuonaire? The OECD sends those questionnaires out to the governments of it's member nations--not the citizens. OECD web site. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development information from wikipedia. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Inequality of wealth distribution is not necessarily a problem. Leaving aside good old fashioned jealousy (which I think is probably a major motivator for those calling for more taxation), it hurts you not at all if your neighbor makes a million dollars a year. The real issue that people ought to be concerned with is where the bottom of the curve lies, not the top. It's all good if there are a ton of people taking home millions. What we don't want is a ton of people only taking home $10k/yr. Eliminating the latter is a noble goal. Eliminating the former is a sop to petty jealousy. If you could guarantee everyone in the US $50k/yr in income, but you'd have to give up 15% of the tax rate on the top earners, would you do it? Look into yourself, ask that question, and answer it honestly, then evaluate your motivations. Is there really not a trace of jealousy in there? -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Um, the OECD isn't exactly an anti-taxation group. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Rogue Dead Guy is very good. I like their Imperial Stout, too. I actually drink mostly American micro-brew type beers. I've drank beer all over the world, and hands down the best beer I've ever had was the (not available in stores) microbrew at the Main Street Brewery in the dusty little town of Cortez, Colorado. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

You may think that, but I don't. There are many things I'd like to change about the US. That's not to say that it's terrible (or ideal). Given a choice of living anywhere (with citizenship) the US would be in my top five, worldwide. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Not really, it's big but not as big as undertaxing the rich. Our tax system burdens the top earners far more than any other country in the industrialized world. (Source). If we wanted to be more like the rest of the world, we'd need to reduce taxes on the wealthy. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

You know why American beer is like making love in a canoe, right? I'm actually something of a beer snob. If it comes in a can, I'm pretty much not going to be drinking it. Have you tried Cooper's? The one that you are supposed to roll back and forth on it's side before you open it? That's an Australian beer I'll drink. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Fosters: It's Australian for "piss." -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

What does your rejoinder have to do with my point? I'm saying that the dems try to hold up and publicize the crazy bits of the GOP, and do their best to ignore any serious proposals or reasonable people coming out of the GOP. Which is exactly what you were doing with your previous post (focusing on the crazy bits and ignoring the reasonable proposals). Please explain how that has to do with people in the democratic party saying things about Sarah Palin or "death boards." -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Which is exactly the democratic party line, Bill. The truth is that the GOP has plenty of alternative ideas, and only a very little crazy (kind of like the dems). But the current dem strategy is to hold up the crazy bits and scream loudly about how all republicans are just like that. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm actually a big fan of Switzerland. If it was even remotely possible for me to acquire Swiss citizenship, I'd be moving there. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Please explain how a trade deficit increases government debt. I really don't understand what you are saying. Defense spending is direct government spending. It is funded by either taxation, borrowing or printing money. Borrowing (or printing money--and with our system they are virtually the same thing) necessarily devalues the currency in circulation. Taxation does not (it has lots of other negative effects, of course). Trade deficits are aggregate numbers indicating total purchases and sales to customers in other nations. They do not directly impact federal budget deficits, because they do not represent direct federal spending. Trade deficits _do_ directly impact the value of the currency (Kallend's point), but they do not have an immediate effect on government indebtedness. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Sure. But by far the biggest contributor is massive government borrowing, mostly to fund military adventurism in far flung places. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

The reason for the weakness of the US dollar is massive government borrowing. That has nothing to do with moving right or left, or whatever. It's just the simple fact that our government spends way more money than it has. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Sure, and by that logic, saying that "dozens" of people voted for Obama would also be an "accurate and responsible description." I mean, dozens is clearly a subset of millions, isn't it? -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

No, he definitely stated that the US had a less progressive tax system than western European countries, and he definitely stated it as a fact. The "something along the lines of" was because I don't have a transcript of the show in front of me, so I can't quote it exactly. It was the host of the show, not someone being interviewed. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

You mean the woman who withheld pain medicine from people in intense pain because suffering is good for the soul? You've got to love religious fanatics. What a winner. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Not sure if this has been linked in this thread (I've lost track of it, and can't be bothered to re-read all 11 pages), but here is one perspective. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

It's interesting that we hear this from the administration, too, and that at least one administration official is on record arguing that entertainment speech (and other forms of commercial speech) should not be given the protection of the First Amendment. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

A few weeks ago I was listening to the Diane Rehm show. She had a guest who was a professor of political economy at Harvard. He said something along the lines of "the US has by far the least progressive tax system in the western world." As a Harvard professor in that area of study, I'm sure he knew that's completely false, and that the OECD has rated the US tax system as either 1st or 2nd in progressiveness in the industrial world (source). Diane Rehm made some comment to the effect of "of course we all know that" and away they went. Today, on the same show, I got to hear (from the host, stated as fact) that people who aren't in line with the Al Gore foundation on global warming believe either (a) that global warming is actually good for the environment, or (b) that global warming isn't happening. No mention of the (far more interesting and defensible) position that we don't know exactly what causes global warming, and that therefore we don't actually know that any of the recommendations from the Gore folks will really do anything at all. A few weeks ago on another program (maybe it was Fresh Air? I can't recall), I heard the same old tired story that "tens of thousands of people") were at the US Capitol on 9/12 for the taxpayer march. I know this to be false, as I was present at the event, which clearly had hundreds of thousands of people. You can view a photo of the attendance (and order it in poster size, if you like) here. Does that look like "tens" of thousands to you? If you can point me at a searchable archive, I'll try to dig out the shows for you. If you want, since I run across this kind of thing several times a week, I can just keep updating this thread each time I find another one. For me, the major difference between FOX news and NPR (aside from the fact I listen to NPR and don't watch, read or listen to FOX news) is not that they are slanted (they both are--just in different direction), but that NPR gets to use my tax dollars to promote their slant, while FOX does not. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

No news is fair and balanced. They all have their own spin. Watch/read/listen to whatever gives you the information (and spin) you want. I listen to NPR everyday, and I can't tell you the number of times I've heard outright lies pushed as truth there. Why should FOX news be any different? They just have a different political slant. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yep. Anyone who disagrees with the current administration must be a book burning fundamentalist. I bet they've all got tin foil hats, too. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com