The anti-taxers never bring up what happened to the economy under Bush's tax policy versus Clinton's tax policy. I cannot take them seriously until they can rectify the differences between those two policies and their respective effect on the economy.

Let's go back a bit further:

An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group of economists advised Presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would rise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenues would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as far too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent, but there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to cause tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. … People on fad diets put their health at risk but rarely achieve the permanent weight loss they desire. Similarly, when politicians rely on the advice of charlatans and cranks, they rarely get the desirable results they anticipate. After Reagan's election, Congress passed the cut in tax rates that Reagan advocated, but the tax cut did not cause tax revenues to rise.

—From economist Gregory Mankiw's Principles of Macroeconomics (3rd ed.) in a section entitled "Charlatans and Cranks"

Nicholas Gregory "Greg" Mankiw is an American macroeconomist. From 2003 to 2005, Mankiw was the chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors. His publications are ranked among the most influential of the over 22,000 economists registered with RePEc (Research Papers in Economics). [Note also that Mankiw has been skeptical of the amount of the recent stimulus spending.]
N. Gregory Mankiw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seaver---we're saying similar things. i just have a peculiar coffee-addled shorthand that perhaps minimized that. anyway, the reorganization of the american economy, the fracturing of the manufacturing sector, the crushing of the union movement, the collapse of the institutional and cultural logics that made collective bargaining arrangements a useful paradigm for thinking wage relations, so that expansions in consumer credit were tied to predictable wage increases in the leading industrial sectors--all the features that made the american/fordist model functional during the period it was in effect from after world war 2 through the 1970s.

the nixon administration was deeply reactionary and full of people so saw in this actually relatively functional model of capitalism some spectre of democratic socialism so the administration moved to fundamentally undermine it, replacing it with more "market" orientations. simplifying a bit (because, well, it's a messageboard) the nixon period opened the way for the reagan thing, and the reagan thing is what descended neoliberalism like a giant fungus over us all.

much of what the tea party is freaked out about seems to follow in a straight line from the implementation of **exactly** the kind of capitalism they continue to endorse.

so they really make no sense in that respect.

that would be one UGLY baby

let's see.......I'm certainly intelligent. I'm not religious in that I don't follow any specific faith, and I have no fear. So how does that label work again? :rolleyes:

the folk i've talked to who are active in the tea party share an incoherent sense of Something Being Horribly Wrong that despite their personality and political differences **none** of them can articulate either in it's specific causes (beyond the idea that Something Is Wrong) and still less in terms of plausible solutions (beyond RUN AWAY). it doesn't make them individually stupid people. what it does is shows what happens when you put people in a movement predicated on a debilitating, stupid ideology---or in this case something that's not even clear enough to be an ideology.

obviously, because i've always followed people who didn't know shit.

seriously, hatred of those whose views and ideas you don't agree with really skews the perceptions of people who try to articulate the hatred into something intelligible.

There's "don't agree with," then there's flat out, irrefutably "wrong." Catering to ignorance is, uh, ignorant, and I don't think anyone should be asked to meet ignorance "half way."

Not so much again as still the first time around since you apparently didn't get it. Now this is what you quoted:

Aaaand here's our friend Mr. Context:

So returning to your arguments one by one and in no particular order:

The "label" is that being a teabagger is in and of itself a personal subscription to a "religion" of anti-intellectualism, hate, and fear. Whether or not you want to admit the fear is entirely up to you but the actions speak louder than words and joining up with these people is a really loud action.

Also note the italics. Anti-intellectualism isnt the same as anti-intelligence, there are plenty of technically-intelligent people (like my father the human calculator and most of the redneck branch of the family tree) that are also rabidly anti-intellectual and have a seething hatred for anyone who in the words of one of my aunts "knows too many things".

As for your first and last points...

:rolleyes:

Taxes are lower now than they've been in over a generation. Things are in the shitter. Turns out the whole lower taxes thing is complete bullshit. We have small government, we have less taxes, and we're in a depression. Compare that to when we had larger government and more taxes.

You can't argue with the facts.

No but you can ignore them.

Small government? Really? Even after Obama presided over some of the largest expansions of govenment services and spending in history?

A democrat believing in small government is like an athiest believing in God

We're not in a depression.

What is Obama expansion compared to Bush Jr.? Bush Jr. and the neo-cons spent money like no tomorrow... all borrowed for the tax cuts of course but they spent like crazy. I saw the right leaning CATO guys came out with a study in 2006 or 7 and found bush increase the Fed's by something like 30% or more.

Least Obama's spending has been more focused on helping out people hurting in the US.

I don't think we really have a small government either. Both Bush and Obama have expanded the size of our government all while fighting wars on two fronts to boot. Hell I don't think we've had a small efficient federal government in the better part of 200 years now.

EDIT: I agree Tully how anybody that support smaller government could support George Bush is beyond me.

The problem with the idea of "small government" from the perspective of the Tea Party is that it's likely a pipe dream. What I can glean from the movement is that many are strict constitutionalists who would like low taxes lowered and a big budget balanced all during a severe recession.

Maybe they're along the lines of libertarians who'd like to see government be no more than an agent for upholding laws, building and maintaining infrastructure, and coordinating foreign policy and organizing the military to support it—but no more.

What you have there is small government, yes, but there are very few real-life examples of this kind of governance where it has worked on a long-term basis. It's like communism in a way; it looks good on paper, but....

I don't think most people would want the ultimate "small government"; I think instead people would rather see responsible government. The thing about Obama's spending that people should keep in mind is that a whole crapload of it is a short-term expenditure in the form of stimulus spending, and it was done on an emergency basis. How many conservatives took to the streets when Bush Jr. opened up the coffers and kicked them over post-9/11?

Small government is an easy slogan without having making the hard choices.

And the few choices I have seen expressed by Tea Party candidates certainty dont reflect a majority opinion - dismantle EPA, privatize Social Security, unemployment insurance is unconstitutional, end all earmarks (pennies on the budget dollar), etc.

And, not one has explained how supporting an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket will not result in significant loss of revenue ($4 trillion over 10 years) and growing debt.

That's an interesting fiction.

We've been living in a time of smaller government for a long time now. When you compare the United States to other industrialized nations, our government is actually quite small (except for defense, of course). This idea that we need even smaller government is nothing but a cover for increasing corporate control, regardless of whether not the people clamoring for smaller government know it or not.
It's small compared to other nations.

It will be small when we are once again sitting at a 10% tax burden.

You mean like last year?

But I think that's the problem, small is a relative term and can mean different things to different people. I think what people really want when they say small government is efficiency, cut down on the bureaucracy, pointless offices and wasteful spending...but what you cut, streamline and where money is wasted is all up for debate too.

I agree with DC its a quick, easy slogan that sounds great at first but when you start thinking about it, its a different story.

...never the less there are plenty of good arguments for streamlining and adhering to efficiency (especially if you want lower taxes), but you have to be willing to make those cuts across the board and not just when its convenient to you. How many Tea Partiers will be just as willing to cut military spending as they are social programs?

The thing is, one person's pork is another person's valiant struggle for justice. Some people think Social Security is bureaucracy that needs to be cut. I think about half the defense budget is unnecessary and should be cut.

After the Bush tax cuts, money collected by the federal government went up, not down.

Obama's plan is not a tax cut, but a tax increase on top earners. A tax increase during a recession. The suggestion that "rich" people won't "spend" the money is an ignorant statement. the issue is not about "spending", it is about "investing". Investment has long lasting implications, spending does not. One reason job growth is slow is due to unwillingness of people to invest in the future. We are seeing an increase in merger and acquisition activity, which is not what we want. Corporations and "rich" people are sitting on cash, we need tax policy that is predictable so that people feel comfortable putting money to work. Buying TV's and cell phones, etc. does not make for a strong recovery.

Spending and investing are connected. If people start spending money on consumer goods, inventories drop and they need to be replenished. If the spending grows to a level where demand outstrips supply, what happens? There's market growth and investors want a piece of it.

The trick is to figure out how to get the money moving. Is it easier to get consumers to spend money if you let them keep more of it in a down economy or is it easier to get capitalists to invest money if you let them keep more of it in a down economy?

If you ask me, it's seems easier to get people to spend. It's only when there are opportunities for growth will investors want to invest. It doesn't help to put the cart in front of the ox.

We had a smaller government until Obama took over. The 2010 budget increase was about 15% year to year and the 2011 budget increase looks like about 10%. By comparison, Bush's budget increases were smaller than that.

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have to measure it as budget compared to GDP or per capita in order to compare us to other countries. As of 2009, tax collections were only 15% of the GDP, which is frighteningly low, in fact it's the lowest in half a century. We can compare that the the rapid inflation of debt, which is of course relevant, but please don't pretend that somehow the government was small under Bush and suddenly massive under Obama. That simply isn't so. It was small-medium under Bush and now it's slightly more medium but still small under Obama.

Comparing the budget to GDP or per capita has absolutely nothing to do with the percentage increase in the federal budget year to year, where Obama is doing a fine job of increasing the budget much faster than Bush did.

I also really don't care what the comparison is to budgets in other countries. First you need to be comparing total tax burdens in each country from local entity up thru national entity to get the entire story and to also properly account for federal mandates that affect state and local taxes.

Second, circumstances and political agendas are different from country to country. Just because socialism is more prevalent in Europe does not justify it's expansion here. If I wanted to live under the European social and political model, I would move to Europe. I tend to not look at Europe as an example of outstanding success in economic or political matters.

I hate this group-think.

Honestly are you telling me that 4% of personal income would cause investors to stop buying into companies? Don't even tell me that 4% is the difference between the desire to make more money or sit like a fat kid on the bench.

Besides, the nations corporations HAVE well over a trillion dollars sitting idle waiting for the economy to get better. If the supply-side logic held true that money would be currently spent creating new jobs... which they're clearly not doing. Therefore, if companies owned by rich people are not reinvesting to grow the economy why would we expect the rich to do the opposite?

Government spending as a percentage of GDP in the U.S. is sitting anywhere between 21 and 25% even after Obama's spending, which is indeed extremely low compared to most other developed nation (Russia is an exception, but they do spend more). If you do the comparisons, you will find the U.S. is sitting amongst many developing nations.

It's not so much that the U.S. overspends, it's that it undertaxes with regard to its budgetary and social spending targets, under both Bush jr. and Obama.

They call the U.S. the richest land in the history of the world; it's too bad it's a nation of misers and penny-pinchers. This is an exaggeration, I know, but you get the point.

Lets just let the historical top marginal income tax rates speak for themselves.

We shouldn't, but obviously if they have so much more money than everyone else they deserve to have more money than everyone else and it's immoral to do anything that might interfere with that because it is.

Once you get rid of everything that's factually incorrect you're left with nothing but arguments that it's somehow just morally wrong to help the unfortunate or tax the fortunate.


Not so much an exaggeration, our gini coefficient is frankly absurd for a first world nation. Wealth is one thing, but when a massive majority of all INCOME across the nation is going to single digit percents then something is out of whack. The difference between now and when Rockefeller et al were basically getting the entirety of the nation's income is that they felt it was a requirement that they put significant quantities of that income right back into the people they got it from, hence basically inventing modern philanthropy. That tax rates were capable of actually paying for things helped.

Now all that happens when you lower taxes is that multinational corporations and their executives, assuming they were paying ANY tax revenue to begin with (which is a big one these days), just get to pay out more bonuses to everyone which they then get to spend on... whatever people making more money an hour than I'll make in a year spend that much money on.

Bullshit.

2009 vs. 2009 - Wikipedia

Other people have taken care of the accounting part. The other part that needs to be taken care of is that a significant chunk of the budget is actually allocated to entitlements and thus not subject to year to year controls. Bush's medicare part D, for example, is more expensive than anything Obama has created by several orders of magnitude.

I see, so in a conversation about how big or small the government is, you refuse to look at any other governments in order to determine an objective, verifiable scale. I see this as nothing but an admission you can't back up your religious faith in the big government talking points.

There's nothing in your reference that describes the year to year increase in the budget. Deficit, yes, but that's a different question.

---------- Post added at 05:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 AM ----------

If you look at the detail at this link, the discretionary spending increased 13%

2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This thread is nothing more then people debating in favor trickle down economics and others against. History has shown they don't freaking work. If they did I'd have no problem supporting them... but they don't. We tried them at least twice now and every time more of the middle class ends up in the ranks of poverty. The more people that sink in poverty the worse off we are as a nation. We keep doing this and we just end up with fewer and fewer people having the vast majority of the wealth and a mass amount of families unable to obtain a decent living wage.

Poverty numbers are soaring while taxes are a near record lows. The wars and all the spending done by the GOP while they were in charge hasn't been paid and none of them seem to have any interest in paying it. They want to wipe it out by cutting off poor people from receiving services. Great then we have even more people who can't afford health care, food or a decent education for their children. Not only that but they won't be paying much, if any, in taxes either. Seriously why is this even a debate? Are wealthy and greedy people so worried about losing a few % points of their income so much they're willing to let the US sink into becoming a third world nation? How American.

if by "worked" you mean that neo-liberal/washington consensus/supply side economic policies have resulted in a redistribution of wealth unprecedented that has made the united states resemble guatemala, that shining beacon of social and economic justice and stability, that capitalist shangri-la, then yes, they worked.

Investment is different than spending. Investment leads to innovation, productivity gains, standard of living increases, increased tax bases, etc. Spending is current consumption. A farmer can spend $1,000 on a TV or the farmer can invest $1,000 in seed corn. We need investment. Investment will fuel employment. Employment will fuel current consumption. But, forgive me for yet another supply side argument - it is ingrained in my psyche.

We need the next Microsoft, the next Apple, the next Ebay, the next Google. We need people who can take an idea and turn it into a multi-billion dollar enterprise. Government needs to creat an environment for that to happen.

---------- Post added at 06:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

I want smaller government, as measured as a percentage of GDP. Thanks.

My point is that no one will invest unless there's a market. There's no need for innovation and productivity if not enough people are buying anything.

People aren't investing for a lack of money, they're not investing because sitting on the cash is safer at the moment.

What's the point of investing $1,000 in seed corn if you'll only have to dump the yield into a Third World market?

The magic happens on the margins.

Every decision made and every decision you make has a pivot point, a point where it turns from no to yes or yes to no.

So, yes. Millions of jobs pivot on decisions on something as small as a 4% swing. Then there is a trend or momentum affect. If competitors are expanding, growing, adding employees, it will impact my outlook on the future. In business perception can become reality. And, perhaps the real issue is not the 4%, but confidence levels.

If you are sitting on a pile of money and you expect things to get worse, you hold on to cash - we are in an environment where cash is king. If you expect things to get better you may not only spend your cash but use leverage for growth. Think of the housing market. If I can buy a $150,000 house six months from now at $125,000, I wait. If in 6 months I expect it to be $175,000 I buy now. People, business or market participants are rational. I know some don't agree, but decision making can be explained and predicted with enough information.

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

There was no market for airplanes before people invested time and money in flight.

Supply side.

To keep the pump primed. An old fashion water pump required a outside source of water to get the pump to start producing water. If you consume the outside source of water, you are screwed. It is often easier to keep you pump operating than it is to re-start it.

What were the markets for rail, automobiles, and oceanliners like?

My point is, people won't invest in existing markets if they are contracting or if they are up one day and down the next. Without the spending to support these markets, they are a huge risk, and investors don't like that kind of risk, so they sit on their money.

No one said to stop the pump, but no one's going to build aqueducts if not enough people are drinking the water.