Conservative Skeptics?

[Batman Jr.]

Use your imagination. Changing job markets, corporate mergers, agricultural failure, I don't know. There are a lot of things that come and go.

I didn't say Bush had no influence on the poverty rate, only that it's not the only factor. An administration can curb or inflame the situation, not create it.

So are Bush's policies curbing or inflaming? I'm assuming you'd want to exclude the latter, so show me all of the other factors that would explain to me why the apparent effects of policy belie actual effects. Show me how Bush isn't hurting the poverty rates.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Well, I'm going to bed.

Thanks everyone for the welcome, and I'll be back tommorow to ruffle some feathers.

I am awaiting it with bated breath. I am sure it will be like subscribing to a "strawman of the week" club.

 

[American]

Flattered. Welcome to JREF, by the way!

I have given up debate here, largely, because it always comes down to the fact that people have different fundamental values - values that matter more than actual issues, however flexible their views. (What shapes those values? Spite, fear, love, sex, ... all of those things.)

The messy details of how the world works are always up for debate, and it's great to learn from and coach people who already agree with you. But the goal of changing another's core values... useless. It only leads to fights.

Just say things that you think are true, and don't engage with those you judge to be fools. That's my advice!

 

[Mycroft]

Keep in mind there are 270 million of us.

There are over a billion Chinese.

Yeah, but they're tiny, so it evens out.

 

[Skeptic]

They are related. But so what? There are a million other factors that effect poverty in this nation, and the oscillation shows that a great many of them aren't related to administrations (we haven't been oscillating Republican/Democrat forever, you know).

This is the problem with using economics as an argument.

It is not that the government's actions have no effect on the economy, of course, but when something good happens, supporters of the government say "government policy!" and opponents say "random trend!", while when something bad happens, they switch positions.

The problem is that it is very difficult even for experts--let alone laymen--to tell which is which and to what degree.

 

[Orwell]

Jaysus, just what this boards desperately needs... Another Neanderthal!

 

[AmateurScientist]

Jaysus, just what this boards desperately needs... Another Neanderthal!

Political dissent is a beautiful thing. Now shut the hell up.

AS

 

[geni]

And in Desert Storm we obliterated Saddam's army in what, 30 days? We had 140 casualties.

Something britian managed with 2200 and a handful of obsulete planes

Last time I checked, the UK wasn't also attempting to reform the Iraqi government.

Been there seen it done it.

 

[AmateurScientist]

The poor performance of the economy under Bush shows your "facts" don't work. I'm not going to waste my time sifting through Hoover Institute's prevarications, and I'm not going to pay the insulting $6 fee to read them. A good word of advice would be to steer clear of "think tanks." They're propaganda machines, not legitimate sources of political analysis.

That's not what I'm talking about. My comments were about fiscal responsibility and taxing and spending.

Look, this is a narrower issue than trying to measure the overall "economy," whatever that is.

I was referring to the Laffer curve and where it came from: facts, not propaganda.

The Laffer curve is named after American economist Arthur Laffer, who examined U.S. income tax revenues compared to marginal income tax rates and determined that if tax rates rise beyond a certain level, they discourage economic growth, thereby reducing government revenues.

Laffer Curve

Invented by Arthur Laffer, this curve shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue collected by governments. The chart below shows the Laffer Curve:

The curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue. Eventually, if tax rates reached 100% (the far right of the curve), then all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government.

Here's another version of the Laffer Curve:

Here's a chart similar to the one the Wall Street Journal publishes every year:

Take a look at that black line on the bottom, the one labeled "Federal Taxes as Percent of GDP." It shows that historically, not just under our current President, federal tax revenue has held fairly steady at about 19.5% of GDP, which is exactly what I said earlier.

Want to see the raw data? Here's a link to it. Even though it appears on the page of The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institutions, the source for the data is the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB, which is an official government office for the U.S. It isn't propaganda. These are cold, hard facts.

I can only link to this chart, as it's too big to reproduce here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/overview/source_gdp.cfm

Take a close look at the numbers in the first three columns for each year, and compare with the first number in the last column for each year. It shows the total tax receipts as a percentage of GDP for that tax year. You will see that it fluctuates just as in the chart above, but that it holds fairly steady at around 19.5%. You should note that during this time, the highest marginal individual income rates varied from as high as 91% to as low as 28%. It made no substantial difference in how much tax was collected versus how well the nation produced.

In other words, raising taxes doesn't bring in more money for the government.

AS

 

[LeFevre]

Darn. Late to this party. But I couldn't help but notice that you didn't even get all the way through your first post without dragging out the strawmen.

Sure, liberals are all star chart consulting, tree hugging, tofu eating hippies. Every man, woman and child among them.

Right. Whatever. Pfeh.

Dude, reread his post. I didn't read it as a strawman stating that every feckin' lib is an astrology freak. He stated, and I and I would hope you as well agree, that those liberals who bitch about Creationism and ID yet at the same time are into astrology are freakin' funny.

My favorite are liberals who actively attack Creationists and then turn around and check their horoscopes.

Like reading some fundy railing against new age flim-flam and making a few good points, then at the end of their tirade they turn into ICANTAKEPICTURESOFDEAMONS and go off on Satan's deamons and the tricks they play.

 

[LeFevre]

I am awaiting it with bated breath. I am sure it will be like subscribing to a "strawman of the week" club.

Are you ok dude? Seem a bit pissy IMO.

 

[LeFevre]

Welcome bagtaggar to the JREF. I'd go back and read a bit of American's posts, the dude IMO is and really hasn't ever been here for any type of serious talk. He really likes REO Speedwagon and hates Elton John. Or maybe it is the other way around?

 

[Batman Jr.]

Political dissent is a beautiful thing. Now shut the hell up.

AS

Was that intentionally ironic?

That's not what I'm talking about. My comments were about fiscal responsibility and taxing and spending.

Look, this is a narrower issue than trying to measure the overall "economy," whatever that is.

I was referring to the Laffer curve and where it came from: facts, not propaganda.

The Laffer curve is named after American economist Arthur Laffer, who examined U.S. income tax revenues compared to marginal income tax rates and determined that if tax rates rise beyond a certain level, they discourage economic growth, thereby reducing government revenues.

Laffer Curve

Invented by Arthur Laffer, this curve shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue collected by governments. The chart below shows the Laffer Curve:



The curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue. Eventually, if tax rates reached 100% (the far right of the curve), then all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government.

Here's another version of the Laffer Curve:



Here's a chart similar to the one the Wall Street Journal publishes every year:



Take a look at that black line on the bottom, the one labeled "Federal Taxes as Percent of GDP." It shows that historically, not just under our current President, federal tax revenue has held fairly steady at about 19.5% of GDP, which is exactly what I said earlier.

Want to see the raw data? Here's a link to it. Even though it appears on the page of The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institutions, the source for the data is the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB, which is an official government office for the U.S. It isn't propaganda. These are cold, hard facts.

I can only link to this chart, as it's too big to reproduce here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFa...source_gdp.cfm

Take a close look at the numbers in the first three columns for each year, and compare with the first number in the last column for each year. It shows the total tax receipts as a percentage of GDP for that tax year. You will see that it fluctuates just as in the chart above, but that it holds fairly steady at around 19.5%. You should note that during this time, the highest marginal individual income rates varied from as high as 91% to as low as 28%. It made no substantial difference in how much tax was collected versus how well the nation produced.

In other words, raising taxes doesn't bring in more money for the government.

Laffer didn't invent the concept of revenues diminishing beyond a certain point as it can be traced back to economists such as Keynes, Bastiat, and Khaldun. Using percentage of GDP is deceptive because as the economy grows and shrinks, tax collection grows and shrinks for a given percentage, so there are tax revenue increases and decreases taking place even in periods where the percentage of GDP makes things look stagnant. Therefore, I cannot conclude that your statistics support your view that we shouldn't raise taxes. Again, given the spiraling deficit, I'm compelled to be highly dubious of any claims that the Bush tax cuts are ultimately healthy.

 

[Chaos]

This is the problem with using economics as an argument.

It is not that the government's actions have no effect on the economy, of course, but when something good happens, supporters of the government say "government policy!" and opponents say "random trend!", while when something bad happens, they switch positions.

The problem is that it is very difficult even for experts--let alone laymen--to tell which is which and to what degree.

Judging from how much the economists (at least those whose lectures I hear) bitch about how politicians never listen to them, or at least never do as recommended, I think most of the time - both for positive and negative stuff - we can rule out, if not "government policy" then at least "advice by economics experts", as a cause.

 

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by rhoadp

I think conservatism shares a lot of the same principles as skepticism, and it's no suprise to me that many posters here are self-proclaimed conservatives.

No disrespect, but I find this comment mind boggling. Disagree with them all you want...it is the people on the Left who tend to be the self-questioners (which is a primary reason they have no power in government anymore). As a group, the shining characteristic of conservatives tends to be that they are so certain all the time.

That is hardly what genuine skepticism is all about.

Actually, many around here are Libertarian-ish, and it's been my observation that it's easier for former conservatives to give up on authoritarian control of religious issues, than it is for liberals to give up on authoritarian control of economic issues.

 

[punchdrunk]

I'm willing to accept that he was a hypocrite, that doesn't change the supremacy of his "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" principle or my belief in it.

No, it doesn't. It's a great Liberal phrase, yet the men who preached it, while liberal for their time, would be considered conservative or ultra-conservative in ours. By our modern standards, Jefferson et al fell short of their own words. The question is then, if classic liberals don't meet our modern liberal standards, is it their failing, a sign of their time, or is it an indication of our misunderstanding of what they really envisioned with such a phrase? How can we be sure that a classic liberal wouldn't reject what you call classic liberalism, or what I call present-day liberalism?

 

[bagtaggar]

Good morning everyone!

So are Bush's policies curbing or inflaming? I'm assuming you'd want to exclude the latter, so show me all of the other factors that would explain to me why the apparent effects of policy belie actual effects. Show me how Bush isn't hurting the poverty rates.

You assume wrong. Perhaps they are inflaming. I was simply trying to play devil's advocate.

I am awaiting it with bated breath. I am sure it will be like subscribing to a "strawman of the week" club.

Someone has a little sand in their... *ahem*

I make one slightly off color comment about a few liberals (based on personal experience, mind you), and suddenly every subsequent argument I will ever make on this forum is a strawman?

Well, I would like to say to the people I've been debating with here that each you have definitely presented a fresh and much appreciated challenge to my views and conventions, and it is a wonderful learning experience that allows me to both strengthen my own argument while understanding its limitations.

Thanks for this spirited debate! I'm glad I joined this forum. It's so fast paced, and the people are (thank god) markedly more intelligent than those I've run across on other debate-format forums.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Was that intentionally ironic?

You're quick today.

Laffer didn't invent the concept of revenues diminishing beyond a certain point as it can be traced back to economists such as Keynes, Bastiat, and Khaldun.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's called "the Laffer Curve." This isn't a discussion of the history of modern economics.

Using percentage of GDP is deceptive because as the economy grows and shrinks, tax collection grows and shrinks for a given percentage, so there are tax revenue increases and decreases taking place even in periods where the percentage of GDP makes things look stagnant. Therefore, I cannot conclude that your statistics support your view that we shouldn't raise taxes. Again, given the spiraling deficit, I'm compelled to be highly dubious of any claims that the Bush tax cuts are ultimately healthy.

I didn't say we shouldn't raise taxes under any given set of circumstances. I made my first post on this topic in response to a remark from another poster that at least tax and spend liberals are fiscally responsible. My response was meant to illustrate that that isn't necessarily the case and why.

I have neither said nor implied anything about the Bush tax cuts in particular. You are constructing strawmen in that regard.

AS

 

[pgwenthold]

Not really. As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out for years and years, income tax revenues tend to remain fairly steady as a percentage of GDP (about 19.5%), regardless of the level of marginal income tax rates. This suggests strongly that taxpayers shift their activities away from taxable events during times of relatively high income taxes, and back to them during years of lower tax rates. The lesson is that American taxpayers have a sort of built-in tolerance for a certain level of income taxation. Try to exceed that, and you achieve nothing positive, and may in fact be acting contrary to your intended goal of raising additional income tax revenue.

They may be wrong, but they still at least _try_ to pay for their spending. Meanwhile, Republicans make no pretense about not even trying. They don't even go through the motions of wanting to pay for their spending. They just spend and pass the bill to the future generations.

You can claim that the democrats go about the wrong approach for generating revenue to cover their spending, but that doesn't change the fact that they try to actually generate the revenue to cover their spending, whereas the Republicans have no problems spending money they don't have and then claim to be the "fiscally responsible" ones.

 

[punchdrunk]

Take a look at that black line on the bottom, the one labeled "Federal Taxes as Percent of GDP." It shows that historically, not just under our current President, federal tax revenue has held fairly steady at about 19.5% of GDP, which is exactly what I said earlier.

AS

First, let me declare my enduring ignorance when it comes to economics, so if what I'm about to say is wrong or makes no sense, just give me a sarcastic smiley and move on....

Looking at your link (thanks for the info), it seems that while total receipts remained constant, tax receipts for individual and corporate income actually rose and fell with the tax rates.

From 1948 to 1964, when rates were at their highest (in your graph), total individual and corporate income tax receipts averaged at 11.81%. From 1965 to 1982, when the tax rate dropped, receipts averaged in at 11.11%. From 1983 to 1986, when rates were drastically lowered, receipts went to 9.4%; the same with 1987 to 1994, they were at 9.77%, and then from 1994 to 2000, when rates were raised slightly, receipts were at 11.3%. Moreover, corporate income tax receipts as a percentage were consistently under 2% during the lowest tax rates and consistently above 3% (and sometimes much higher) during the highest tax rates.

So, while total receipts remained constant, it was due to other factors such as the increase in Social Security and Retirement receipts over the years. With the cap on Social Security taxable income at $90,000 (I may not be saying that correctly, but hopefully you know what I mean), is it fair to say that Social Security is a tax that hits lower and middle classes harder than income tax rates, and by reducing the rates and amount corporations have paid in income tax and increasing the Social Security tax, we have effectively shifted tax burden from corporations to the lower and middle classes?