Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

Carter was presiding over a very poor economy, by his own standards (big mistake by quoting the misery index). Middle class voters flipped because Democrats were seen to be taking middle class tax dollars and spending them on suboptimal Government projects. Now the middle class is flipping back as inequality rises and the democrats seem to be the only party to take notice. Iran didn't help, but most elections really are about the economy in capitalist societies.

I contest that the poor economy was mostly a commodity shortage.

But instead we went with the whole "everything we know about the economy is wrong, countercyclical policies are proven mathematically false, supply side bitches!" that has served humanity so well.
Fucking Hayek, the man was wrong about fucking everything all the time, but for 5 minutes in the 70s if you squinted right and snorted the WSJ he kinda sorta had a prediction that wasn't completely destroyed by reality, so we'll go with him from now on.

But I digress.

 

[TheHeretic]

I contest that the poor economy was mostly a commodity shortage.

But instead we went with the whole "everything we know about the economy is wrong, countercyclical policies are proven mathematically false, supply side bitches!" that has served humanity so well.
Fucking Hayek, the man was wrong about fucking everything all the time, but for 5 minutes in the 70s if you squinted right and snorted the WSJ he kinda sorta had a prediction that wasn't completely destroyed by reality, so we'll go with him from now on.

But I digress.

As a matter of politics it doesn't matter. Hoover didn't ask for the economy to collapse under him, but it did and his response (which was much better than most will give credit) wasn't effective and he got punished. Clinton presided over a tech boom not of his making and reaped the rewards. It's not a fair game, but you play it as best you can and Carter played it terribly.

As for Reagan, he wasn't anywhere near as right wing as you may think he was. He made some smart choices (or his minions did) in tackling inflation and tax bracket creep. He only pushed his party rhetorically to the right, his policies were reasonably pragmatic. The big shift in US and UK politics has been the left wing embrace on neoliberalism, perhaps you should take them to task instead, because Clinton was arguably to the right of Reagan - he certainly was on welfare and his deregulation was just as aggressive.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Well things Ronald Reagan did that I liked:

- Stopped the monopoly on telecommunications.

How much did the Reagan Administration have to do with Ma Bell breaking up?

 

[zero shift]

Externalities.

Explain.

 

[jamesinclair]

I think the amount is an order of magnitude too small, but its progress.

In an agreement announced today, the City of New York will pay more than $365,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by people whose property was destroyed when the New York Police Department raided Zuccotti Park and evicted Occupy Wall Street on November 15, 2011.

Occupy Wall Street had brought the suit against the city over the destruction of the People's Library, a collection of about 5,500 donated books that formed a central part of the community that sprung up for two months in the park. In the eviction, many of the books were completely destroyed, and others were so badly damaged as to be unusable. Occupy Wall Street claimed $47,000 in damages, all of which the city agreed to pay today.

On top of the damage claims, the city will also pay $186,350 in fees and costs to Occupy Wall Street's lawyers.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/04/city_settles_la.php

 

[Black Mamba]

Can we maybe pick a reason why you think VAT is good and try to flesh it out? I feel like we're jumping around from argument to argument without reaching any resolution or agreement.

I don't think either a consumption tax or an income tax are good. I think a VAT has some benefits and an income tax other benefits while both have cons. I think we could balance the two to make a better tax system.

1. that it increase compliance costs - as I said, this is only true to people who would not have to pay income tax at all because of that move, and I think you can't make that number work if you make that number of people substantial, but more importantly, I think this issue should be handled by simplifying our tax code.

We could do both.

Ever hear of the X Tax, btw? I don't endorse it ignoring capital gains and such, but the rest seems to make sense.

2. we should encourage saving - encouraging saving is discouraging consumption, and I think you should only do it when the economy is too hot, and there are significantly better tools to achieve it than flipping the switch on VAT. Like, would you remove VAT whenever we go into recession? also, I think you forgot that most American don't save because they're living paycheck to paycheck, introducing VAT is not going to encourage them to do anything but eat less.

A VAT won't make people save more during a recession. The problem, generally speaking, during a recession is a lack of disposable income, not over-saving. There is no money to save or spend. But people saving during a hot or even descent economy would mitigate recessions since they'd have money to rely on during poor economic times.

The only time saving is an issue is during deflation. But a VAT won't have anything to do with deflation. That will generally come from poor monetary policy or hoarding due to a gold standard and such or a huge boom going bust and it's pretty irreversible (like land prices). A sales tax will contribute nothing to this problem.

I understand what you're thinking. You're thinking a VAT now would cause people to save now instead of consume thereby hurting the recovery. But as I said, this is a misunderstanding of the problem (a lack of disposable income). People are spending everything they got and will continue to do so. The issue is that a lot of that money is not going to goods but to pay off debt- debt which would be smaller had they initially saved!

The US saves too little. It's precisely why we had a such a large housing boom - irrational exuberance and a penchant to spend as much as the debtors will allow.

For the Americans that live paycheck to paycheck, nothing is supposed to change. That's a separate issue and also why I argued I'd lower their taxes and raise taxes on the upper incomes to compensate (as well as strengthening welfare).

3. Better economic output - not sure how that study or anything that you said support it.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9492.pdf?new_window=1 Try this[/QUOTE].

Note that it's not a guarantee.

And I probably missed your tax question, what was it?

Do you support the gasoline tax and if so, why not replace it by increasing income taxes?

I also think it's important you see that how you tax does matter, hence my question on withholding.

 

[Black Mamba]

Well things Ronald Reagan did that I liked:

- Stopped the monopoly on telecommunications.

- Deregulation in general. I believe as long as you pay your workers enough, have the company pay its fair share in taxes, and don't have any dangerous conditions present in the world place there shouldn't be much more of a need for regulations. American businesses needed some deregulation back then. But it should have been concentrated, accurate, and gradual. Not swift and radical.

That didn't last long, lol

 

[rocketknight]

Explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_externality#Negative

 

[ElectricThunder]

Nope, he doesn't get any credit on that front.
He stepped away from SALT II like a fucking idiot because "the ruskies gonna Red Dawn us any moment now!" (and probably because he didn't bother to open a map and figure out where Afghanistan is).
I don't care that he got some watered down bullshit crammed down his throat when his mind was barely there by people who knew better (and Gorby).
His record is fucking dreadful on nuclear disarmament.

For more details on the likes of this, and really much of what is being discussed now coming back up again, I really enjoyed Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States

http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states/home


I know most folks tear it down for being anti-american/knocking down "heroes" like Reagan down into the mud where they belong, but it makes a pretty solid case and is probably one of those things best to be seen by lots of folks just to round them out and instill a sense to step back and question things.

 

[empty vessel]

All you have to do to not be attacked or overthrown, is not be a dick.

I'm sorry, but this is the most ridiculous understanding of international relations I've ever heard. Have you ever read a history book? I don't mean to be insulting, but the view that wars and imperial conquest reduce to how "dickish" any given leader is just ... not even worth responding to any further.

Well things Ronald Reagan did that I liked: ...

- Deregulation in general. I believe as long as you pay your workers enough, have the company pay its fair share in taxes, and don't have any dangerous conditions present in the world place there shouldn't be much more of a need for regulations. American businesses needed some deregulation back then. But it should have been concentrated, accurate, and gradual. Not swift and radical.

American businesses have never been in need of deregulation. You don't think regulations governing product safety are desirable or necessary?

 

[pigeon]

Explain.

It's not complicated. When you make a product, you have costs and revenues. Some of these costs and revenues are less direct, and sometimes their indirection causes them to accrue to parties other than the manufacturer. There's an economic incentive to attempt to redirect or hide all your costs, even when doing so causes their overall value to go up, as long as it means you're not the one paying them. Pollution of all sorts is the classic example here, although a more picturesque example would be the famous Ford Pinto memo, where Ford does its accounting based not on the actual human costs of the deaths caused by their poor engineering, but only those costs they could be forced to pay with lawsuits. (Although less discussed, there's also an economic incentive to recapture any of the "revenues" that would ordinarily accrue to the consumer by using the product, of which intellectual property law is probably the best known result.)

But, almost by definition, allowing manufacturers to export hidden costs is bad for society, since it almost always causes the overall cost to go up. That's the purpose of almost all business regulation -- trying to force businesses to actually pay the full costs of the products they market. In the more general sense, for capitalism to function, we need a counterbalancing force or agency to realign the economic incentives of capitalists with those of society, since they do not naturally align at all. That's what regulation is for.

 

[Hitokage]

Unfortunately, many of the same people who push hardest for deregulation are under the influence of a philosophy that denies the existence of externalized costs. According to Rand, there are no third parties to which these costs may be pushed upon.

 

[The Librarian]

Weiner is eyeing the mayor race in New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/m...-huma-abedins-post-scandal-playbook.html?_r=0

 

[FyreWulff]

Man, when you read crap like this in a story about background checks

The filibuster pledged by 14 GOP senators means Reid, whose Democratic caucus holds 55 seats, needs 60 votes to open debate on the gun legislation.

You realize how inoperable Congress is right now. Needing 60 to even get DEBATE on something? Christ... and then you remember it's because Reid allowed it to happen.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Man, when you read crap like this in a story about background checks



You realize how inoperable Congress is right now. Needing 60 to even get DEBATE on something? Christ... and then you remember it's because Reid allowed it to happen.

We have to agree on what we are going to argue about!

 

[Chichikov]

Ever hear of the X Tax, btw? I don't endorse it ignoring capital gains and such, but the rest seems to make sense.

It's hard enough to argue with you, I'm not adding an unnamed 3rd party to this conversation, if you think X Tax is a good idea, say so and be ready to defend it.

A VAT won't make people save more during a recession. The problem, generally speaking, during a recession is a lack of disposable income, not over-saving. There is no money to save or spend. But people saving during a hot or even descent economy would mitigate recessions since they'd have money to rely on during poor economic times.

The only time saving is an issue is during deflation. But a VAT won't have anything to do with deflation. That will generally come from poor monetary policy or hoarding due to a gold standard and such or a huge boom going bust and it's pretty irreversible (like land prices). A sales tax will contribute nothing to this problem.

I understand what you're thinking. You're thinking a VAT now would cause people to save now instead of consume thereby hurting the recovery. But as I said, this is a misunderstanding of the problem (a lack of disposable income). People are spending everything they got and will continue to do so. The issue is that a lot of that money is not going to goods but to pay off debt- debt which would be smaller had they initially saved!

The US saves too little. It's precisely why we had a such a large housing boom - irrational exuberance and a penchant to spend as much as the debtors will allow.

For the Americans that live paycheck to paycheck, nothing is supposed to change. That's a separate issue and also why I argued I'd lower their taxes and raise taxes on the upper incomes to compensate (as well as strengthening welfare).

Again, I don't accept that the US have a household saving problem right now, but again, this is a REALLY bad way to approach that issue.
You want to more people to save, you raise interest rates.
People are not saving not because there's no VAT (don't make pull up data on household saving differences between states, please), they're not saving because there really aren't any good saving avenues for the common working family, and because many of them literally don't have any disposable income.

There is a huge retirement problem, but in its root is the terrible 401k model, I don't know how much more you think VAT going to make people put in their retirement funds, but it's not going to be enough to make a dent.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9492.pdf?new_window=1 Try this

I reject their methodology pretty much completley (and I resent you for making me read it).
Also, I'm not sure how exactly you want to apply that paper to the discussion we're having.

p.s.
I thought about it a bit more and I think your complexity argument is bunk.
Let's say we want to change our tax code so that 60% of the population don't have to pay taxes, still, you need to answer why it is better to replace that revenue with VAT rather than raising income rates on the rest of the population (but again, I think your 60% number is unrealistic).

 

[Hitokage]

One more point on deregulation. Regulation isn't just a linear quantity, as there is more to the picture than simply having "more" or "less". It's entirely possible for Government to be regulating the wrong things, or in a suboptimal way. This is why I personally believe that some pressure to deregulate is healthy, as it makes people examine and defend the regulations we have so we're not regulating just for the sake of regulating. Of course, when you have an ideological opposition to any and all regulation, this breaks down, but normally you want debate to continue on as the times change so the emphasis is on appropriate regulation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

American businesses have never been in need of deregulation. You don't think regulations governing product safety are desirable or necessary?

This isn't true. You think all regulation is for heath and safety?

 

[empty vessel]

This isn't true. You think all regulation is for heath and safety?

First, it has always been true. Second, the comment was in response to a post. Read that post for context.

 

[kingkitty]

So they've reached a bipartisan deal on background checks, which is also widely supported by the public. Can't wait to see the republicans filibuster.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm sorry, but this is the most ridiculous understanding of international relations I've ever heard. Have you ever read a history book? I don't mean to be insulting, but the view that wars and imperial conquest reduce to how "dickish" any given leader is just ... not even worth responding to any further.

History changes. This is not the 1800s. It is not the 1930s. It is not even the 1980s. It is the 2000s. Things change. Now yes, we invaded Iraq but that was very controversial, heavily opposed, and completely regretted. And that was a guy who had recently invaded another country and used chemical weapons on his own people.

 

[gcubed]

So they've reached a bipartisan deal on background checks, which is also widely supported by the public. Can't wait to see the republicans filibuster.

Can't filibuster if its over 60, I believe the deal will easily make it over 60... i'm curious to see the final number voting for it, because it will tell me if it will pass the house (If it has sufficient GOP support in the senate Boehner will bring it to a vote and it will pass with mostly democrats)

 

[Chichikov]

History changes. This is not the 1800s. It is not the 1930s. It is not even the 1980s. It is the 2000s. Things change. Now yes, we invaded Iraq but that was very controversial, heavily opposed, and completely regretted. And that was a guy who had recently invaded another country and used chemical weapons on his own people.

So at this point, your argument is pretty much "he should've withdrawn from the non-aligned countries club in the mid 90s/early aughts"?

I'm not sure I agree but in any case, do you really think that fault justify your level of vitriol?
Calling anyone who thinks Venezuela should've stayed non-aligned (or like me, who don't think those things really matter one way or another at this point) seems a bit of stretch.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Sure Obama

In a briefing with reporters at the White House on Tuesday, senior administration officials characterized the official adoption of Chained CPI as both a recognition that rounding out a ground bargain will require making concessions to the GOP, and as a final gesture of good faith to Republicans in Congress, who’ve been demanding Obama propose and take ownership of entitlement cuts for years.

But the officials also stressed that Chained CPI will never become law unless Republicans respond (in unlikely fashion) by agreeing to limit tax expenditures benefiting high-income earners. If they don’t, it will mark the end of Obama’s two-year quest to secure trillions of dollars in deficit reduction on a bipartisan basis.

Let's be honest, if this deal doesn't come to fruition there won't be another opportunity for a big deal whether Obama wants one or not. With mid terms being next November, there is no way that Congress will be up to working towards anything significant. Just as we discussed when the chained CPI change was confirmed last week, while the gameplan is understandable, it's useless. Just makes Obama look like he's groveling.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

First, it has always been true. Second, the comment was in response to a post. Read that post for context.

Again, It's always been true that every regulation is for health and safety?

And I don't understand how reading that post in context changes anything. He made a statement and you responded with a sweeping claim that regulation has never needed to be rolled back and with a question seemingly implying regulation only is for health and safety.

Sure Obama



Let's be honest, if this deal doesn't come to fruition there won't be another opportunity for a big deal whether Obama wants one or not. With mid terms being next November, there is no way that Congress will be up to working towards anything significant. Just as we discussed when the chained CPI change was confirmed last week, while the gameplan is understandable, it's useless. Just makes Obama look like he's groveling.

I do think if they reject this Obama is going to present a liberal (but popular) plan for deficit reduction. Something like the senate plan and run on that in 2014.

 

[Clevinger]

I do think if they reject this Obama is going to present a liberal (but popular) plan for deficit reduction. Something like the senate plan and run on that in 2014.

Haha. Good one.

 

[teiresias]

Sure Obama



Let's be honest, if this deal doesn't come to fruition there won't be another opportunity for a big deal whether Obama wants one or not. With mid terms being next November, there is no way that Congress will be up to working towards anything significant. Just as we discussed when the chained CPI change was confirmed last week, while the gameplan is understandable, it's useless. Just makes Obama look like he's groveling.

Thus from your quote is annoying:

…and as a final gesture of good faith to Republicans in Congress, who’ve been demanding Obama propose and take ownership of entitlement cuts for years.

Why would he even want to take ownership of them? Particularly at the behest of Republicans? So damn weak and ridiculous.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Ugh. I just sat through a discussion on the Megyn Kelly show in which she and her two guests including Kirsten Powers and Monica Crowley were going off on Melissa Harris Perry's comments about abortion and children & the state. It was so excruciating. Powers was arguing that from the moment of conception, the fetus is indeed a human being. Monica was pushing the notion that MHP was arguing that children were property of the state which is equal to slavery. That such a notion reeks of hypocrisy which if a Republican said it would be accused of supporting slavery and racism.

BTW, MHP said this:

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have,” she says in the spot. “We haven’t had a very collective notion of, these are our children. We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, we start making better investments.”

This goes back to what I find so objectionable to the GOP's extreme stance on abortion. They care about the child while it's in the womb but once it's born they couldn't care less. While MHP says when it's in the womb it is up to the woman to choose but when it's born we all have a responsibility to give it the best opportunity to succeed.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Ugh. I just sat through a discussion on the Megyn Kelly show in which she and her two guests including Kirsten Powers and Monica Crowley were going off on Melissa Harris Perry's comments about abortion and children & the state. It was so excruciating. Powers was arguing that from the moment of conception, the fetus is indeed a human being. Monica was pushing the notion that MHP was arguing that children were property of the state which is equal to slavery. That such a notion reeks of hypocrisy which if a Republican said it would be accused of supporting slavery and racism.

BTW, MHP said this:



This goes back to what I find so objectionable to the GOP's extreme stance on abortion. They care about the child while it's in the womb but once it's born they couldn't care less. While MHP says when it's in the womb it is up to the woman to choose but when it's born we all have a responsibility to give it the best opportunity to succeed.

Their outrage is ridiculous.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I do think if they reject this Obama is going to present a liberal (but popular) plan for deficit reduction. Something like the senate plan and run on that in 2014.

I'm not that optimistic. I think this will represent the benchmark of any Obama budget plan in the future.

It would be nice though for Democrats to reclaim the House in 2014 and Obama to propose a more progressive budget, while telling Boehner and Cantor etc. that they missed the boat if they wanted something more conservative. IIRC he expressed as much to Boehner after the election when Boehner was whining that Obama took raising the retirement age off of the table.

So, the savings from ending the wars isn't counted in deficit projections, is it? That might have an impact as well since Afghanistan ends next year.

 

[zero shift]

I'm sorry, but this is the most ridiculous understanding of international relations I've ever heard. Have you ever read a history book? I don't mean to be insulting, but the view that wars and imperial conquest reduce to how "dickish" any given leader is just ... not even worth responding to any further.

Its funny because a Wikileak just came out showing the U.S. involvement in trying to fund the opposition, the same ones that tried to crash Venezuela's economy.

American businesses have never been in need of deregulation. You don't think regulations governing product safety are desirable or necessary?

I'm referring to things like how little kids can no longer start lemonade stands , how you need work permits to make some notable changes to your house, etc. Stupid shit like that. I have no problem with regulations on safety or the environment but I just feel some regulations are a little extreme.

That didn't last long, lol

I'd still prefer what we have now to the AT&T days.

History changes. This is not the 1800s. It is not the 1930s. It is not even the 1980s. It is the 2000s. Things change. Now yes, we invaded Iraq but that was very controversial, heavily opposed, and completely regretted. And that was a guy who had recently invaded another country and used chemical weapons on his own people.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Yes! Not just possible, but probable. I think this is something that tends to get lost in the black-and-white views and arguments that make up politics.

Pretty much. Again specific regulations I don't like. There were some regulations during that time I felt needed to be strengthen as well. However there were some that I felt were too draconian. I did think overall some needed to scale back but nowhere near to the point Reagan pushed it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm not that optimistic. I think this will represent the benchmark of any Obama budget plan in the future.

It would be nice though for Democrats to reclaim the House in 2014 and Obama to propose a more progressive budget, while telling Boehner and Cantor etc. that they missed the boat if they wanted something more conservative. IIRC he expressed as much to Boehner after the election when Boehner was whining that Obama took raising the retirement age off of the table.

So, the savings from ending the wars isn't counted in deficit projections, is it? That might have an impact as well since Afghanistan ends next year.

His next budget if this is rejected will not have SS or medicare cuts. thats what I'm saying, not that it wont have cuts.

 

[pigeon]

I'm referring to things like how little kids can no longer start lemonade stands , how you need work permits to make some notable changes to your house, etc. Stupid shit like that. I have no problem with regulations on safety or the environment but I just feel some regulations are a little extreme.

You can't just separate the two, though. Why are lemonade stands getting busted? Because it's illegal to operate an unlicensed food stand. Why is that? Health and safety concerns. Is that a good regulation? Absolutely. Now, does that mean I think that little kids should get busted for starting lemonade stands? No*. But if you write an explicit exception in for businesses with two or less employees owned by a preteen, get ready for a sudden wave of McDonalds Junior Franchises. This is the kind of problem that's an issue of judgement in enforcement rather than regulation, in my view.



* Unless they're like that kid I saw at the Temescal Street Fair selling sugar water for $5, because I think that kid was learning the wrong lesson.

 

[Chichikov]

This is the kind of problem that's an issue of judgement in enforcement rather than regulation, in my view.

We need to put more judgment back in our laws in general.
That super prescriptive crap is the way lawyers think, I think it's bad, also, it's prescriptive mostly in theory, if we wanted to use language that is clear and has no ambiguity (which I would think is what you want in your laws), there are significantly superior frameworks than the one we use.

 

[rocketknight]

Ugh. I just sat through a discussion on the Megyn Kelly show in which she and her two guests including Kirsten Powers and Monica Crowley were going off on Melissa Harris Perry's comments about abortion and children & the state. It was so excruciating. Powers was arguing that from the moment of conception, the fetus is indeed a human being. Monica was pushing the notion that MHP was arguing that children were property of the state which is equal to slavery. That such a notion reeks of hypocrisy which if a Republican said it would be accused of supporting slavery and racism.

BTW, MHP said this:



This goes back to what I find so objectionable to the GOP's extreme stance on abortion. They care about the child while it's in the womb but once it's born they couldn't care less. While MHP says when it's in the womb it is up to the woman to choose but when it's born we all have a responsibility to give it the best opportunity to succeed.

That was pretty much Rich Lowry's opinion column today too! Gee, I wonder ...

 

[Gotchaye]

We need to put more judgment back in our laws in general.
That super prescriptive crap is the way lawyers think, I think it's bad, also, it's prescriptive mostly in theory, if we wanted to use language that is clear and has no ambiguity (which I would think is what you want in your laws), there are significantly superior frameworks than the one we use.

There are places where this is useful, but it's really hard to let individual police officers, for example, exercise substantial judgment without creating enormous inequities in enforcement. DWB is a thing. We probably want discretion being exercised at a higher level by more accountable people, and that means that enforcers on the ground are still going to need some pretty hard and fast rules.

 

[Black Mamba]

It's hard enough to argue with you, I'm not adding an unnamed 3rd party to this conversation, if you think X Tax is a good idea, say so and be ready to defend it.

I don't have to defend it, I'm merely giving you options other than straight income taxes. You seem to have tunnel vision right now.

Again, I don't accept that the US have a household saving problem right now, but again, this is a REALLY bad way to approach that issue.
You want to more people to save, you raise interest rates.

This is not how it works. You don't raise interest rates to cause savings (in fact, gov't bonds, which is saving, are at an all time low and yet people demand them like crazy), interest rates rise as banks demand more savings. You have the process backwards. rates don't cause savings, savings determines the rates. It's like prices. You're essentially arguing prices determine demand (interest rates are the price of money).

It's why the austerity hawks have gotten the whole interest rate prediction stuff wrong. A rise in interest rates right now would be because the economy is better and there's more disposable income and thus banks want more money and are willing to pay more for it, not because a lack of bond confidence (which is akin to your deflation worry).

And before you say "The Fed controls rates," this is not accurate. In controls the Fed Funds rate and it ties to influence the general interest rate. But the market can ignore it. Your options at the banks, for example, are not low because of the Fed. They'd be low regardless because banks do not want your money much right now. A couple years ago, they sort of wanted to close up shot and take no one's money.

People are not saving not because there's no VAT (don't make pull up data on household saving differences between states, please), they're not saving because there really aren't any good saving avenues for the common working family, and because many of them literally don't have any disposable income.

I just argued this! If you think my argument is people don't save because there is no VAT, you need to go back and re-read because that is a straw man.

There is a huge retirement problem, but in its root is the terrible 401k model, I don't know how much more you think VAT going to make people put in their retirement funds, but it's not going to be enough to make a dent.

Separate issue, but if you think the US undersaving didn't make a dent in the Great Recession, you're very very wrong. It was an balance sheet recession for a reason and exactly why it has been much harder to get out from under.

I reject their methodology pretty much completley (and I resent you for making me read it).
Also, I'm not sure how exactly you want to apply that paper to the discussion we're having.

p.s.
I thought about it a bit more and I think your complexity argument is bunk.
Let's say we want to change our tax code so that 60% of the population don't have to pay taxes, still, you need to answer why it is better to replace that revenue with VAT rather than raising income rates on the rest of the population (but again, I think your 60% number is unrealistic).

I don't know what to say. You're entire argument seems to be "I just don't agree and I don't accept any argument to the contrary."

basically: You: Can someone explain what benefits a sales tax has over income tax?
Me: Here are the benefits
You: Nah, I think that's wrong
Me: explanation why it isn't
You: Not buying it

I mean, I don't know how else to approach it. I don't know of many, if at all, economists from any school of thought that thinks an income tax is no different than a sales tax from an aggregate economy point of view. And any data I've seen agrees with that. You seem to reject any notion to the contrary. When I ask you, through questions, to think of things in a different light, you ignore the questions.

I think we're at an impasse.

 

[Chichikov]

There are places where this is useful, but it's really hard to let individual police officers, for example, exercise substantial judgment without creating enormous inequities in enforcement. DWB is a thing. We probably want discretion being exercised at a higher level by more accountable people, and that means that enforcers on the ground are still going to need some pretty hard and fast rules.

I agree we don't want discretion on everything, I'm just saying we need more of it.

It's not like the legal language stopped any of the stuff you're talking about, it just made it easier to people (usually rich people who can afford high powered lawyers) to go against the intention of the law (and by extension, the people).

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Well none of us could see this coming

Remember those warnings about how instead of welcoming President Obama’s adoption of Chained CPI, Republicans would continue to deny him a budget deal and attack him for proposing to cut Social Security?

Well Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) — who also happens to be chairman of the House GOP’s re-election committee — just showed how it’s done, saying Obama’s budget “lays out a shocking attack on seniors.”

“I’ll tell you when you’re going after seniors the way he’s already done on Obamacare, taken $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare and now coming back at seniors again, I think you’re crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine certainly and around the country,” he said on CNN Wednesday afternoon.

Needless to say, if the NRCC chairman is fronting this line of attack, we’ll probably see it pop up contested districts around the country next year.

 

[Chichikov]

This is not how it works. You don't raise interest rates to cause savings (in fact, gov't bonds, which is saving, are at an all time low and yet people demand them like crazy), interest rates rise as banks demand more savings. You have the process backwards. rates don't cause savings, savings determines the rates. It's like prices. You're essentially arguing prices determine demand (interest rates are the price of money).

Really?
You're making the case the better returns on saving will not incentivize saving?
Even supply siders don't say that.
We're definitely at an impass if we can agree on that.

And before you run to the googles to look for economics that agree with your assertion, I should caution you that the people who think that saving in inelastic (or more accurately less elastic) generally think that savings doesn't matter so much.

basically: You: Can someone explain what benefits a sales tax has over income tax?
Me: Here are the benefits
You: Nah, I think that's wrong
Me: explanation why it isn't
You: Not buying it

I didn't want to do it, but fine.

Can you read and understand this (from that study) -

I actually can, it's not even super complicated, but my guess is that you didn't exactly read it, you were looking for a study that would support you position, but I'm more than happy to talk about the issues that I have in their methodology, but if you're going to butt out and say "well, it's really about compliance complexity" after two posts then I'd rather not bother.

Also, before we start, can you tell me what claim from the study exactly do you want to argue about, it says numerous things.

p.s.
I lied, I'm not more than happy, that shit is boring as hell, I hope you say 'no', for both of us.

 

[Frank the Great]

obama played right into their hands as usual. dat eleventh dimensional chess

 

[The Technomancer]

Well none of us could see this coming

 

[Hitokage]

Well none of us could see this coming

Now the media just needs to blame both sides for being intransigent. I'd be nostradamus if this wasn't predicting where a spot on a wheel will be after it turns once.

 

[Chichikov]

obama played right into their hands as usual. dat eleventh dimensional chess

Obama's is playing 11th dimensional chess, the GOP plays roshambo.
Roshambo wins every time.

Edit: that's actually a good thing, if this wouldn't make him wake up nothing will.

 

[789shadow]

Say bye bye to any potential gains in Congress in 2014.

 

[Angry Fork]

Well none of us could see this coming

If this catches on I'm going to lose my shit. There should be some checks and balances created that is dedicated to weeding out liars and con artists in government. The media isn't doing it, having the government force the media to be more hostile towards the government isn't going to happen, and ordinary people don't care enough. Something has to happen to these maniac cunts.

But blame should also be thrown at Obama admin. for their fanatical need to capitulate. What will it take to move the spectrum back to the left. Romney being elected could've sped this up instead of the slow, agonizing shift where we have to sit through the 'left wing' government being okay with cutting safety nets and programs people pay into.

 

[Frank the Great]

Edit: that's actually a good thing, if this wouldn't make him wake up nothing will.

i feel like i've heard this before

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

By the time Obama realizes that it's useless to play nice it will be 2014, a mid term election year. After the midterms, unless Dems get the House and win a few Senate seats Obama will be a lame duck President. He was a dumbass for doing this.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Well none of us could see this coming

So. Fucking. Predictable. This was called by everyone during the last "grand bargain" negotiations. Even the Obama administration players correctly gamed out that it was the reason the GOP would not name their entitlement cuts: they wanted Obama to own them for the inevitable bait and switch.

Obama walked right into it. He learned zilch from his entire first term working with these people. I don't think it's a stretch to say this will have an impact on the House midterms. The collective cry of dismay from House Dems when chained CPI was known to be included in the budget was deafening.

 

[fallagin]

Well none of us could see this coming

No. Fucking. Way.

Obama, you dumbass. You could have seen this coming a mile away.