I didn't see that analogy, but thanx for pointing it out. It makes perfect sense that you don't abandon a country in their time of need. That explains why Japan and Germany prospered and became allies and Afghanistan failed miserably after the Soviets left and we abandoned them.
But, since you brought up Iraq, it really doesn't matter what you think about about the war or why we went in. The reality of the situation is that we are there now. Trying to change the subject is denying reality! Explaining why we should not have gone in is a complete waste of time and breath. All that really matters at this point is where we go from here. Do we simply pull out as Code Pink wants (Out of Iraq, NOW! (impatient little bitches)) or do we stick around until Iraq is able to stand on their own two feet? History shows that it is better to stay, stand, fight and rebuild (Japan and Germany) than it is to simply abandon (Afghanistan, Vietnam).
From the way things look now, the BEST we could hope for an abandoned Iraq is for them to turn into a 1990's Afghanistan, only with unlimited funding from oil. I think that is exactly what Code Pink wants so it will make Bush look bad and they and people like you can say, "see, told you so!"
If you are concerned about the US's image on the world's stage, do you think leaving Iraq in a state of civil war will make the US look good? Do you think that turning Iraq into a puppet of Iran and/or Al Qaeda is good for American interests and security.
Stop trying to place blame and start trying to find solutions. The debate on going into Iraq is over and your side lost. History will show if it was for better or worse. Let's try to make it for the better instead of throwing a temper tantrum and hoping for the worst just so you look like you were right.
Data Mining is spying? I use data mining techniques every single day. It's how I separate the few peanuts of data that I want from an enormous stack of crap. I had no idea that I was spying!
So tell me, how do we get the data I need without manually searching each and every record? (replace "data I need" with terrorist and "every record" with citizen)
For a well measured and written comment, that certainly harbours alot of fear and mistrust. Do you have a basis for those fears or are they more of a phobia? Im wondering because when a country is destroyed and then left to moulder I can see why it would harbour resentment, but I was under the impression the US helped with Japan's rebuilding efforts.
And that is the key. Defeated enemies tend to become the strongest allies when you take the time to stick around and rebuild the country so that it is nicer than it was when you first showed up. Japan is an ally because we were allowed to finish the job and did not "cut and run". Hell, we are still there!
The woman had an opportunity to settle out of court for a much lower amount. She chose to pass up the opportunity to settle and instead decided to push the issue knowing what the possible outcomes were (anywhere from her winning to around $150000 per song). She lost and got a smallish fine compared to what it could have been.
OK. So when someone threatens you with a law suit but offers to settle for a much lower amount, you should always settle. Well, if that's how you feel. Your name here on slashdot offends me. It is too close to dick, which is a common euphemism for a penis. I'm going to sue you for 10 Billion dollars. You have the option, of course, for settling for a measly $5 million if you so choose. Since that is so much lower than the total amount (less than 1%), I expect that you will be settling. Send me a message via slashdot with your bank account information so I can go ahead and do a reverse ACH payment and we will consider this little matter closed. I expect you to have the money within a week.
Ubuntu has basically stolen all the hype mandriva used to have hasn't it? Mandriva used to be one of the only 'gratuis' distros which had a nice desktop by default didn't it pioneer the way towards 'point and click', 'just working'? It worked great until you want to install new software. Granted, I haven't used Mandrake...er... Mandiva since I switched to Debian-based-distro's (like Ubuntu) years ago, but I distinctly remember having do download mdk.rpm's or something of the sort to install apps. Of course, then I'd have to hunt for their dependencies. When I couldn't some particular dependencies, I would have to download the source and hope it compiled without error. RPM-Hell is why I dumped Redhat! Why would I go into a deeper ring of Hell with Mandr*?
Again, it's been a while since I've used it. If they have a better (read: automated with many applications) package manager, then good for them, but unless it beats apt-get/aptitude or emerge, I'm not interested.
Good thing we don't need the government to fund something to make progress on it.
Actually, the US government DOES support this type of research. This was done with mice, not human embryos. Still, even it was human tissue being researched, the US Gov't would still fund research providing that it either used one of the existing stem cell lines or the stem cells came from a different source such as cord blood or adult stem cells.
You should really look this stuff up before you spout off like that.
The F-22's radar is impressive, but here is the deal... You have to go active to see targets, particularly well concealed targets and that makes you "visible" as well. If the new JDAF fighter can remain "unseen" until it gets up close and personal and is a lighter, smaller and more nimble aircraft, the F-22 may have a problem.
Smaller, faster and quieter can oftentimes triumph over larger and more complex as demonstrated in at least one Naval wargame where an entire US carrier battlegroup lost the game to a couple diesel electric subs built by the Germans.
All the planes don't have to have their radars turned on. Here is how I understand it works. Let's say have a group of three planes. The first two fly ahead of the third, quietly. The third, that stays behind, turns his radar on. Of course, he is going to stand out like a whore in church, but who cares because he is out of range. Now the first two planes can see the radar returns from the third plane's radar, as well as communicate between the three planes to make sure everyone one is on the same page and sharing all data.
Um. I didn't mention the ACLU (or at least I don't think I did), but since you brought it up...
he reality is that the ACLU doesn't come down on the right side all the time. A side effect of erring on the side of limiting discrimination and siding with the minority is that you sometimes end up being unpopular and sometimes end up being straight up wrong. The more important question is, are we talking about an organization that's more of a liability than a force for good? As I see it, on the good side you have times when the ACLU protects somebody who is being abused by the government, stands up for free speech, and gets due process for somebody who might otherwise been denied it. On the other hand, people are occasionally offended because they have to take down a religious trinket they've put up on the public dime. Frankly, while I'm usually annoyed and mildly offended at the use of my money being spent to rub my nose in other peoples' religion, I'm easygoing enough that I think a lawsuit is a bit over the top. On the other hand, if the symbolism of a particular group's idol being displayed by the government should be no big deal, why do they wet themselves with rage when they're asked to take it down?
I will agree that the ACLU is not an evil organization, but way too often, they stick their nose where it doesn't belong. Even more often, they gladly offend the majority in order to keep the minority from getting offended.
Here is an example. The ACLU fought to allow Wiccan symbols allowed on soldier's graves. That's a good thing. I don't care if a soldier wants a spaghetti monster on his grave! Whatever they want, that is what they shall have! However, the ACLU fought to have a war memorial covered with a tarp because it was in the shape of a cross. Was anyone really offended by this cross on a hill in the middle of the Mojave desert? Not that I can find. But, because it was in the shape of a cross, and it was on public land, the ACLU demanded that it be covered. Why? Who was offended? Did anyone care?
The ACLU has not given up its fight to also have the cross removed at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California. The organization claims the display of the cross on federally-owned land violates the constitution.
Of course, the ACLU did the same thing in San Diego
How about a Katrina memorial along side the Mississippi River on private land and paid for by private funds?
The American Civil Liberties Union is objecting to plans for a memorial to the 129 residents of Louisiana's St. Bernard Parish who died in Hurricane Katrina, because it will include a cross bearing a likeness of the face of Jesus.
In a letter to parish officials, Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Joe Cook said the plan violates separation of church and state because the memorial would be alongside a public waterway.
But the parish president says he sees nothing wrong with the memorial, which will be erected on private land near the Mississippi River's Gulf outlet and is being financed with donations.
What if I want to display a manger scene in my front yard that faces a public roadway? (whose front yard doesn't face a public roadway?) How about if I want to build a church next to a federal highway? What if I want to use a federal highway to get to church on Sunday morning? Isn't that using federal funds to support a religion?
Same story, another link. This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. The ACLU is sticking their noses where it does not belong. No one in this Parish complained. Hell! No one complained at all with the exception of the ACLU.
Little girls in the second grade have been taken to the principal's office because they said grace before lunch. I'm going to have to challenge this one. When did this happen, and was it an official policy or just some idiotic administrator with no clue about the rules? HERE we go:
The Rutherford Institute is currently involved in defending a 10 year old boy named Raymond Raines. The case is scheduled to be heard in a federal district court in St. Louis Missouri. What terrible crime did this young boy commit? Praying over his lunch!...
On three different occasions and in full view of all the other students in the lunchroom this boy was forcibly removed from his seat and sent to the principal's office for discipline. His only "offense" was to bow his head and pray silently over his lunch.
On one of the occasions, the principal himself yanked Raymond from his seat and told him point-blank that he could not pray over his lunch. And if that wasn't enough, the school officials forced him to sit apart from the other students and made fun of his religious beliefs and practices. Sorry. It was a little boy, not a little girl.
I am sure that few will argue that what these teachers did was wrong. Even the President agrees, but it's no surprise given the right wing nature of the President!
Declaring that the First Amendment "does not convert our schools into religion-free zones," President Clinton last July released a comprehensive statement of principles, spelling out what student religious activities are permissible in the public schools.
That just means that you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. The US was founded on the idea that religion has no place whatsoever in the government of a free society. That is what set it apart.
Really? You seem to have some knowledge, so I won't be so cocky as to say that you don't know what you are talking about. I will say, however, that you seem to read only the history pages that you agree with. I think we are all guilty of that. Here is what I have learned from the pages I have read. Together, I think we can make an accurate representation of what really happened!
The founding fathers didn't want to take religion out of government. They didn't want the government telling YOU what religion you had to be. You have to look at WHY they put that in the Constitution to begin with. You see, when Henry the VIII was the king of England, he wanted a new wife, but the Pope wouldn't grant a divorce. So the king formed a new religion and called the Church of England, making himself the head (since so many wives had lost theirs!). This is where Protestants come from. In 1553, Mary became Queen. She changed the country back to Catholicism and burned Protestants who wouldn't change at the stake. In 1558, Elizabeth became Queen. She changed the church back to the Church of England. The founders had Quakers, Episcopalians, Baptists, Roman Catholics and so on in their midsts. They could have never agreed on a national religion so they said that there would be no national religion. This is why the Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
as the very first thing in the Bill of Rights. It means that Congress can not form a "Church of the Americas" or any other denomination and establish it as the official state religion. I think what you are reading is:
Congress shall not respect religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof by government;
Which is not what is written in the Constitution.
You are correct that the founders did not want congress creating laws that forced religion on anyone. That much we can agree on. Thomas Jefferson wrote religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God. But to say that religion has never had influence on government is taking it a bit far. Man's "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for Pete's sake!
Now I don't want the government trying outlaw sin. But I have a problem when people start trying to take down Christmas lights on the town square, because someone was offended. I have a problem when Halloween and Christmas are canceled because someone was offended. I have a problem when a local judge is forced to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda, even though the VAST majority of the local population wants it there because someone from out of town was offended. I have a problem when the rights of those who are not religious trample the rights of the religious. Moments of silence have been banned in some schools because someone might be praying. Little girls in the second grade have been taken to the principal's office because they said grace before lunch. We have taken this "no establishment of religion" to mean that there can be no religion, which is unConstitutional itself!
Some quotes from founders:
"In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling.... Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States." --Alexander Hamilton
"The great pillars of all government...[are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible." --Patrick Henry
"We have no government armed in power capable of contend
But at the present moment some technological progress is being stifled in the USA by the anti-scientific fundamentalists ( eg stem cell research - most likely many of the new medical advances will come out of Europe or Asia. Also alternative energy research is being stifled by global warming denial).
I have to call bullshit here, and because you seem intelligent, I can only assume that you know it's bullshit.
You know damn well that George Bush is the first president ever to give money to stem cell research. Yes, GWB gave money for stem cell research. Bill Clinton gave none.
What Bush refused to allow federal grants to spent on was the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines. Scientists could have full access to the stem cell lines already created. Scientists could also create all the stem cells they wanted from sources other than an embryo (cord blood, adult stem cells, whatever). And even though you will NEVER admit it, Bush was right and it is paying off. Research from adult stem cells is starting to show results and treatments, whereas embryonic stem cell treatments have only so far caused cancer.
As for Global Warming, well that has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the idea of not changing you entire lifestyle because of the doomsday prediction of the week. I remember an Indian crying because of trash on the side of the road. I remember that smog was going to cause global cooling and another ice age. I remember the ozone hole was going to cause us all to die from skin cancer. Now I see that global warming is going to cause the average Earth temperature to raise 1.7 degrees C over the next 100 years, and even THAT is suspect! Besides, you'd think that all these other countries would already be creating gobs of alternative energy since they pay so much more for a Liter of Petro than we pay for a Gallon of Gasoline for all this time!
Gee, that's funny. I live in a small town near Austin now. I am white and a minority. You see, us white folk are a minority around these parts. So don't give me any bullshit about how the white man is holding down everything else, because it's a blatant lie. Well, at least it's not true in Nacogdoches, Joaquin, Center, Beaumont, Houston, SugarLand, Ft. Bend County, Waco, San Antonio, El Paso, nor MacAllen Texas. Nor is it true in New Orleans, Sulfer or Shreveport Louisiana. Now I'm not going to say that racism doesn't exist, but the type of lynching you've described has been extinct for at least thirty years. And while there is still some hangovers around here, such as the ropes in Jena LA, racism is not limited to the south. For that matter, I met more toothless rednecks in Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California than I've ever met anywhere south of Kentucky.
Well, I take part of that back. I've seen some blatant racism come out of Jena LA recently, but it wasn't from white people. It was from a boatload of protesters led "civil rights leaders" calling for the release of six teenagers who ganged up on and beat up another kid. Why are they calling for the release? Because the it was black kids beating up a white kid. So, yeah, racism exists in the South, but not as you described. You see, when white kids gang up on and beat up a black kid, it's called a lynching. When black kids do it to white kids, it's called justified.
And, when visiting my wife's family, one of her older aunts did make fun of someone of a different race. You see, they are Hispanic. She made fun of me for not being able to say their names correctly. Of course, she was quickly reprimanded by everyone else in the family once they were alone. She's been extraordinarily nice ever since.
Well, I've mentioned every place I've ever lived or visited for any length of time. Where is this fictional Jew hating place you described? My guess is that it is in your head. In other words, I'm calling bullshit. If a Jew were hung from a rope anywhere in the South over the past thirty years, it would have made the news bigtime. Got a link to that story? Nope? Then STFU and stop spreading lies about shit you obviously know nothing about.
Obviously things have gone horribly wrong in the last thousand years. But then again we seem to be going in the same direction in the United States, with intelligent design etc. In fact in the article "Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world" sounds a lot like the United States, where over 50% of the population doesn't accept the theory of evolution (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml).
So this is something new? It seems to me that the US is moving away from religion, not towards it. Compare the laws and liberties that we have today and compare them to what we had over the past 100 years. Hell, when I was a child (1970's), I remember "blue laws" that would prevent grocery stores from selling anything other than the absolute necessities. I remember management would place carts to block off the toy and alcohol aisles. And yet, in November, 1971, a company called Intel publicly introduced the world's first single chip microprocessor, the Intel 4004 (U.S. Patent #3,821,715), invented by Intel engineers Federico Faggin, Ted Hoff, and Stan Mazor.
Yeah, I don't recall a great scientific medieval period in the US from 1776 to present.
Sounds exactly like the America's Jesusland, A.K.A. the south.
Not at all. Southern fundamentalists Christians don't cut off your head if you decide you don't want to be Christian any more. They just vote in laws that prohibit you from drinking before noon. Then again, since you compared the two, it is obvious that you are extremely bigoted and ignorant of anything outside your mother's basement. I don't expect you to be able to understand such things.
Following your second statement, couldn't you logically conclude that tax revenue increased under GWB because we were coming out of 2001 recession? How do you know it was the tax cut that did it? It could have just well been that GWB could have left the tax alone and we could have STILL seen the increase in tax revenue.
Sure, that is possible, but it didn't work too well when Carter tried it. For that matter, the problems with the Carter economy lasted until Reagan's third year in office. Hoover tried that Lase Faire attitude as well, which many credit as a cause for the great depression. Even so, you may have a point if I were comparing tax receipts year by year, but I'm not. The US government has pulled in more money than at any point in history, and this is with a lower tax rate. So I'm not comparing the first quarter of 2007 with just the first quarter of 2006. I'm comparing it with any quarter since 1776! The 2001 recession has nothing to do with it.
My mentioning the post WWII economy was in response to the increase in the economy felt after WWII. No kidding! We were coming out of nearly 20 years of depression!
In fact, that scenario DID happen under Clinton! When he raised tax rates (no he didn't lower it, you really have an interesting memory), all the supply side cuckoos pointed to Laffer Curve and said "you are going to kill economy and lower tax revenue!!!". Instead, we saw one of the greatest economic growth in decades (and corresponding increase in tax revenue which allowed us to actually REDUCE deficit which GWB has failed to do). Don't blame be! Here is the quote from Clinton's White House Webpage June 26, 2000:
Taxes for Typical Families: Lowest in Over Two Decades
* 1981-92. The total Federal tax rate for middle-income families rose from 23.7 percent in 1980 to 24.5 percent in 1992. (Total tax rates include both the employer and employee portion of the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.)
* Today. Under President Clinton, the total Federal tax rate for middle-income families has dropped from 24.5 percent in 1992 to 22.8 percent in 1999 - that's the lowest tax rate since 1978. For families at one-half the median income, the effective Federal tax rate has been slashed from 19.8 percent in 1992 to 14.1 percent in 1999 - that's the lowest tax rate since 1968. And no matter how much conservatives like to call Clinton a flaming liberal, he was extremely conservatives as far as Democrats go.
You haven't provided us with historical data. You've provided unsupported opinion. How about some links to actual studies?
I hope that we can agree that there is much more to federal tax receipts than tax rates. The Heritage Foundation has a good write up and offers some case studies. I see no point in reprinting the whole article. They put it well with the following:
Looking at Case Histories
The effect of tax rates on economic activity should not be overstated. The economy, after all, can be affected significantly by trade policy, regulatory policy, monetary policy, and many other government actions. Even within the context of fiscal policy, tax rates are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.
Keeping all these caveats in mind, there nonetheless is a distinct pattern throughout American history: Simply stated, when tax rates are reduced, the economy prospers, tax revenues grow, and lower-income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden. Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with subpar economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. As for recent data, I offered the following:
Here is a story from USAToday.
The deficit for the first four months of the current budget year is down sharply from the same period a year ago as the government continues to benefit from record levels of tax collections. And from HERE:
We know this is [literally] yesterday's news, but the state of the US Government budget for April 2007 deserves comment regardless. The Treasury took in a record $383.6 billion in the month, contributing to a surplus of $177.7 billion, the second largest monthly surplus ever. I'm not going to dig up sources that show that Bush cut taxes. That's a given and you shouldn't need a source for that. It may be a coincidence that Bush cuts taxes and the government pulls in record receipts, but that coincidence keeps showing up time and time again in the past 80 years. I think it is fair to say that raising taxes will have a negative effect on the economy, resulting in lower tax receipts.
You are still missing the point. Yes, it is a curve. But NOBODY HAS ANY IDEA WHERE THAT CURVE IS!!! It could very well be that we are on the upslope of the curve where raising the rates would mean more tax revenue. No one can say for sure the curvey is really meaningless.
The fact the GWB cut taxes and revenues climbed tells me that we were on the right side of the curve. We may have crossed the crest and ended up on the left side, but I think that is unlikely.
For instance, during and after WW2, the US economy soared and tax revenues were healthy even thought the top brackets were paying 70% or more.
Of course the economy soared during WW2. Prior to WW2 was the Great Depression! There was no other direction for the economy to go!
So there is no WAY that you can say that increasing the tax rates right now would have a negative impact on the tax revenue. It is HIGHLY likely the modest increase of tax rates WILL increase tax revenue. Most of the historical data supports that.
Historical data from 1976 forward shows that cutting taxes has increased federal revenue. Carter raised taxes, the economy nose dived. Reagan cut taxes, the economy sky rocketed. GHWBush raised taxes, the economy went into recession. Clinton lowered taxes, the economy went up. GWBush cut taxes further, the economy went up further. How much more historical data do you need?
Let's try that last part again. Evidently, using the less-than symbol screws up formatting.
So based your kiddie version of economics and no real data whatsoever, you think it is safe to assume that complex models built by Econ PhDs and real-world evidence is wrong? No real data? Bush cut taxes and now tax revenues are at record highs. That IS data and real world evidence. It would appear that REAL WORLD evidence supports me. Granted, tax cuts are not the only reason why revenue is up, but taking less out of the GDP causes the GDP to grow. Taking a smaller percentage of a larger gives you larger amount than taking a larger percentage of a smaller amount. (10% of 100,000 is less than 9% of 120,000)
Spending more than you take in is the cause of deficits. Raising spending and lowering revenue at the same time is the worst of all worlds, and the one this administration has chosen. Perhaps it is a political attempt to starve the beast, but it is not sound economic policy.
I don't care how many times you say it, it does not make it true. The government has more revenue than at any point in history. Read the quote from above where it says record levels of tax collections. Also, from the same quote as before
For January, the government ran a surplus of $38.2 billion. Spending for the month totaled $222.4 billion while revenues totaled $260.6 billion. I will agree with you that increasing government spending was a bad idea, but don't try to claim that the government has less to spend than it did before. It's simply not true.
1. The Laffer curve is about as simplistic a economic model as can exist. Um, the Laffer curve is not an economic model. It is a tax-rate vs tax-revenue model. Even so, it is not the simplest. The simplest is the model you and other Democrats use, which is a straight line. It's the impression that the more you tax, the more you make, which is false. 2. The Laffer curve does not say that lowering tax rates increases tax revenue. Not exactly. If you are currently on the left side of the curve, then raising taxes will raise revenue. If you are on the right side of the curve, lowering taxes will actually raise revenue. Seeing that Bush lowered taxes and revenue went up, is a strong indicator that we were on the right side of the curve. 3. The Laffer curve says nothing about where optimal tax rates should be. True. The optimum tax rate fluctuates based on economic and other conditions.
Easy, there are more people in the USA then ever before. You're kidding, right? And you claim that the Laffer curve is too simple?
To claim your revenue will actually go up is something so brazen that even the very conservative proponents did not (and honest ones still don't) make. Um... tax revenue DID go up.
The deficit for the first four months of the current budget year is down sharply from the same period a year ago as the government continues to benefit from record levels of tax collections... The amount of revenues collected from October through January were up 9.7% from the same period a year ago, climbing to a record level for the period of $834.1 billion. It appears that the facts don't jive with what you are trying to say here.
So based your kiddie version of economics and no real data whatsoever, you think it is safe to assume that complex models built by Econ PhDs and real-world evidence is wrong? No real data? Bush cut taxes and now tax revenues are at record highs. That IS data and real world evidence. It would appear that REAL WORLD evidence supports me. Granted, tax cuts are not the only reason why revenue is up, but taking less out of the GDP causes the GDP to grow. Taking a smaller percentage of a larger gives you larger amount than taking a larger percentage of a smaller amount. (10% of 100,000 Spending more than you take in is the cause of deficits. Raising spending and lowering revenue at the same time is the worst of all worlds, and the one this administration has chosen. Perhaps it is a political attempt to starve the beast, but it is not sound economic policy.
I don't care how many times you say it, it does not make it true. The government has more revenue than at any point in history. Read the quote from above where it says record levels of tax collections. Also, from the same quote as before
For January, the government ran a surplus of $38.2 billion. Spending for the month totaled $222.4 billion while revenues totaled $260.6 billion. I will agree with you that increasing government spending was a bad idea, but don't try to claim that the government has less to spend than it did before. It's simply not true.
Absolutely. The number one complaint we Americans have is that the IRS doesn't do its job. We all think that it doesn't audit enough people and would be truly satisfied with it if only it were more thorough.
That changes when the people being asked are the ones being audited. Everyone's in favor of making sure the other guy pays his fair share, but that opinion changes rather quickly when they become the other guy.
You are correct that there is much more to the economy than tax rates. The Fed plays a larger role by controlling the amount of currency in the market by adjusting interest rates deciding how much cash to print. Something as simple as weather can have an impact as well (see Katrina's effect on gasoline prices).
My point was not to enter into an economic discussion, but to refute the GGP's point that raising tax rates will increase the amount of money the federal gov't has to spend. Such a statement assumes that a graph representing tax rates vs federal receipts is a straight line. Any first year economics student can tell you otherwise. That graph is a curve. The Laffer curve is an excellent representation of that curve. Yes, that curve moves up and down and left and right based on an infinite number of stimuli, but it still remains a curve in all circumstances.
Just as lowering taxes will not guarantee higher receipts, neither will raising taxes as the GGP stated. But in reference to the economy as a whole, raising taxes will NEVER increase the GDP and is only a good idea if you are on the left side of the curve or you need to cut the amount of currency in the economy to decrease inflation. Neither scenario fits where we are today.
I think the history is that the courts have allowed temporary wartime injustices like this in the past, loss of habeas corpus during the Civil War (if you suggested peace with the South you might be arrested), internment of Germans in WWI, and the internment of Japanese in WWII.
The problem is that the current administration wants to have it both ways, wartime/emergency/crisis powers and wants the domestic life to otherwise behave as if there is no emergency, such as repeatedly cutting taxes, despite deficit spending.
I agree with all of what you say except the bold part, which I feel needs a response. So, AGAIN! Please read and learn the principal of the Laffer curve. I don't want to have to explain it again.
Now, we all know that Bush cut taxes after taking office. We also know that the government has been breaking records with tax receipts. The US government has brought in more money than at any point in history. How can this be? How does lowering taxes man more revenue? Well, as you can see from the Laffer curve, if you are on the right side of the peak, lowering taxes means more revenue. So, higher tax receipts prove we were on the right side of that curve.
So, because of what I've stated here, I think it is safe to assume that raising taxes will actually decrease the amount of money the government pulls in, NOT increase it. So WHY WHY WHY would you want to raise taxes? (Could someone ask this on the next YouTube Democratic debate please)
As for deficit spending... the problem is just that, SPENDING! While tax receipts have gone up, government spending has gone up even faster. This is why we have deficits, not because or lower taxes (See Laffer curve)
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't see that analogy, but thanx for pointing it out. It makes perfect sense that you don't abandon a country in their time of need. That explains why Japan and Germany prospered and became allies and Afghanistan failed miserably after the Soviets left and we abandoned them.
But, since you brought up Iraq, it really doesn't matter what you think about about the war or why we went in. The reality of the situation is that we are there now. Trying to change the subject is denying reality! Explaining why we should not have gone in is a complete waste of time and breath. All that really matters at this point is where we go from here. Do we simply pull out as Code Pink wants (Out of Iraq, NOW! (impatient little bitches)) or do we stick around until Iraq is able to stand on their own two feet? History shows that it is better to stay, stand, fight and rebuild (Japan and Germany) than it is to simply abandon (Afghanistan, Vietnam).
From the way things look now, the BEST we could hope for an abandoned Iraq is for them to turn into a 1990's Afghanistan, only with unlimited funding from oil. I think that is exactly what Code Pink wants so it will make Bush look bad and they and people like you can say, "see, told you so!"
If you are concerned about the US's image on the world's stage, do you think leaving Iraq in a state of civil war will make the US look good? Do you think that turning Iraq into a puppet of Iran and/or Al Qaeda is good for American interests and security.
Stop trying to place blame and start trying to find solutions. The debate on going into Iraq is over and your side lost. History will show if it was for better or worse. Let's try to make it for the better instead of throwing a temper tantrum and hoping for the worst just so you look like you were right.
Data Mining is spying? I use data mining techniques every single day. It's how I separate the few peanuts of data that I want from an enormous stack of crap. I had no idea that I was spying!
So tell me, how do we get the data I need without manually searching each and every record? (replace "data I need" with terrorist and "every record" with citizen)
For a well measured and written comment, that certainly harbours alot of fear and mistrust. Do you have a basis for those fears or are they more of a phobia? Im wondering because when a country is destroyed and then left to moulder I can see why it would harbour resentment, but I was under the impression the US helped with Japan's rebuilding efforts.
And that is the key. Defeated enemies tend to become the strongest allies when you take the time to stick around and rebuild the country so that it is nicer than it was when you first showed up. Japan is an ally because we were allowed to finish the job and did not "cut and run". Hell, we are still there!
The woman had an opportunity to settle out of court for a much lower amount. She chose to pass up the opportunity to settle and instead decided to push the issue knowing what the possible outcomes were (anywhere from her winning to around $150000 per song). She lost and got a smallish fine compared to what it could have been.
OK. So when someone threatens you with a law suit but offers to settle for a much lower amount, you should always settle. Well, if that's how you feel. Your name here on slashdot offends me. It is too close to dick, which is a common euphemism for a penis. I'm going to sue you for 10 Billion dollars. You have the option, of course, for settling for a measly $5 million if you so choose. Since that is so much lower than the total amount (less than 1%), I expect that you will be settling. Send me a message via slashdot with your bank account information so I can go ahead and do a reverse ACH payment and we will consider this little matter closed. I expect you to have the money within a week.
Mandriva used to be one of the only 'gratuis' distros which had a nice desktop by default
didn't it pioneer the way towards 'point and click', 'just working'? It worked great until you want to install new software. Granted, I haven't used Mandrake...er... Mandiva since I switched to Debian-based-distro's (like Ubuntu) years ago, but I distinctly remember having do download mdk.rpm's or something of the sort to install apps. Of course, then I'd have to hunt for their dependencies. When I couldn't some particular dependencies, I would have to download the source and hope it compiled without error. RPM-Hell is why I dumped Redhat! Why would I go into a deeper ring of Hell with Mandr*?
Again, it's been a while since I've used it. If they have a better (read: automated with many applications) package manager, then good for them, but unless it beats apt-get/aptitude or emerge, I'm not interested.
Good thing we don't need the government to fund something to make progress on it.
Actually, the US government DOES support this type of research. This was done with mice, not human embryos. Still, even it was human tissue being researched, the US Gov't would still fund research providing that it either used one of the existing stem cell lines or the stem cells came from a different source such as cord blood or adult stem cells.
You should really look this stuff up before you spout off like that.
The F-22's radar is impressive, but here is the deal... You have to go active to see targets, particularly well concealed targets and that makes you "visible" as well. If the new JDAF fighter can remain "unseen" until it gets up close and personal and is a lighter, smaller and more nimble aircraft, the F-22 may have a problem.
Smaller, faster and quieter can oftentimes triumph over larger and more complex as demonstrated in at least one Naval wargame where an entire US carrier battlegroup lost the game to a couple diesel electric subs built by the Germans.
All the planes don't have to have their radars turned on. Here is how I understand it works. Let's say have a group of three planes. The first two fly ahead of the third, quietly. The third, that stays behind, turns his radar on. Of course, he is going to stand out like a whore in church, but who cares because he is out of range. Now the first two planes can see the radar returns from the third plane's radar, as well as communicate between the three planes to make sure everyone one is on the same page and sharing all data.
he reality is that the ACLU doesn't come down on the right side all the time. A side effect of erring on the side of limiting discrimination and siding with the minority is that you sometimes end up being unpopular and sometimes end up being straight up wrong. The more important question is, are we talking about an organization that's more of a liability than a force for good? As I see it, on the good side you have times when the ACLU protects somebody who is being abused by the government, stands up for free speech, and gets due process for somebody who might otherwise been denied it. On the other hand, people are occasionally offended because they have to take down a religious trinket they've put up on the public dime. Frankly, while I'm usually annoyed and mildly offended at the use of my money being spent to rub my nose in other peoples' religion, I'm easygoing enough that I think a lawsuit is a bit over the top. On the other hand, if the symbolism of a particular group's idol being displayed by the government should be no big deal, why do they wet themselves with rage when they're asked to take it down?
I will agree that the ACLU is not an evil organization, but way too often, they stick their nose where it doesn't belong. Even more often, they gladly offend the majority in order to keep the minority from getting offended.
Here is an example. The ACLU fought to allow Wiccan symbols allowed on soldier's graves. That's a good thing. I don't care if a soldier wants a spaghetti monster on his grave! Whatever they want, that is what they shall have! However, the ACLU fought to have a war memorial covered with a tarp because it was in the shape of a cross. Was anyone really offended by this cross on a hill in the middle of the Mojave desert? Not that I can find. But, because it was in the shape of a cross, and it was on public land, the ACLU demanded that it be covered. Why? Who was offended? Did anyone care?
The ACLU has not given up its fight to also have the cross removed at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California. The organization claims the display of the cross on federally-owned land violates the constitution.
Of course, the ACLU did the same thing in San Diego
How about a Katrina memorial along side the Mississippi River on private land and paid for by private funds?
The American Civil Liberties Union is objecting to plans for a memorial to the 129 residents of Louisiana's St. Bernard Parish who died in Hurricane Katrina, because it will include a cross bearing a likeness of the face of Jesus.
In a letter to parish officials, Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Joe Cook said the plan violates separation of church and state because the memorial would be alongside a public waterway.
But the parish president says he sees nothing wrong with the memorial, which will be erected on private land near the Mississippi River's Gulf outlet and is being financed with donations.
What if I want to display a manger scene in my front yard that faces a public roadway? (whose front yard doesn't face a public roadway?) How about if I want to build a church next to a federal highway? What if I want to use a federal highway to get to church on Sunday morning? Isn't that using federal funds to support a religion?
Same story, another link.
This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. The ACLU is sticking their noses where it does not belong. No one in this Parish complained. Hell! No one complained at all with the exception of the ACLU.
Then there is the case where the ACLU
On three different occasions and in full view of all the other students in the lunchroom this boy was forcibly removed from his seat and sent to the principal's office for discipline. His only "offense" was to bow his head and pray silently over his lunch.
On one of the occasions, the principal himself yanked Raymond from his seat and told him point-blank that he could not pray over his lunch. And if that wasn't enough, the school officials forced him to sit apart from the other students and made fun of his religious beliefs and practices. Sorry. It was a little boy, not a little girl.
I am sure that few will argue that what these teachers did was wrong. Even the President agrees, but it's no surprise given the right wing nature of the President! Declaring that the First Amendment "does not convert our schools into religion-free zones," President Clinton last July released a comprehensive statement of principles, spelling out what student religious activities are permissible in the public schools.
The US was founded on the idea that religion has no place whatsoever in the government of a free society. That is what set it apart.
Really? You seem to have some knowledge, so I won't be so cocky as to say that you don't know what you are talking about. I will say, however, that you seem to read only the history pages that you agree with. I think we are all guilty of that. Here is what I have learned from the pages I have read. Together, I think we can make an accurate representation of what really happened!
The founding fathers didn't want to take religion out of government. They didn't want the government telling YOU what religion you had to be. You have to look at WHY they put that in the Constitution to begin with. You see, when Henry the VIII was the king of England, he wanted a new wife, but the Pope wouldn't grant a divorce. So the king formed a new religion and called the Church of England, making himself the head (since so many wives had lost theirs!). This is where Protestants come from. In 1553, Mary became Queen. She changed the country back to Catholicism and burned Protestants who wouldn't change at the stake. In 1558, Elizabeth became Queen. She changed the church back to the Church of England. The founders had Quakers, Episcopalians, Baptists, Roman Catholics and so on in their midsts. They could have never agreed on a national religion so they said that there would be no national religion. This is why the Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
as the very first thing in the Bill of Rights. It means that Congress can not form a "Church of the Americas" or any other denomination and establish it as the official state religion. I think what you are reading is:
Congress shall not respect religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof by government;
Which is not what is written in the Constitution.
You are correct that the founders did not want congress creating laws that forced religion on anyone. That much we can agree on. Thomas Jefferson wrote religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God. But to say that religion has never had influence on government is taking it a bit far. Man's "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for Pete's sake!
Now I don't want the government trying outlaw sin. But I have a problem when people start trying to take down Christmas lights on the town square, because someone was offended. I have a problem when Halloween and Christmas are canceled because someone was offended. I have a problem when a local judge is forced to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda, even though the VAST majority of the local population wants it there because someone from out of town was offended. I have a problem when the rights of those who are not religious trample the rights of the religious. Moments of silence have been banned in some schools because someone might be praying. Little girls in the second grade have been taken to the principal's office because they said grace before lunch. We have taken this "no establishment of religion" to mean that there can be no religion, which is unConstitutional itself!
Some quotes from founders:
"In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling.... Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States."
--Alexander Hamilton
"The great pillars of all government...[are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible."
--Patrick Henry
"We have no government armed in power capable of contend
But at the present moment some technological progress is being stifled in the USA by the anti-scientific fundamentalists ( eg stem cell research - most likely many of the new medical advances will come out of Europe or Asia. Also alternative energy research is being stifled by global warming denial).
I have to call bullshit here, and because you seem intelligent, I can only assume that you know it's bullshit.
You know damn well that George Bush is the first president ever to give money to stem cell research. Yes, GWB gave money for stem cell research. Bill Clinton gave none.
What Bush refused to allow federal grants to spent on was the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines. Scientists could have full access to the stem cell lines already created. Scientists could also create all the stem cells they wanted from sources other than an embryo (cord blood, adult stem cells, whatever). And even though you will NEVER admit it, Bush was right and it is paying off. Research from adult stem cells is starting to show results and treatments, whereas embryonic stem cell treatments have only so far caused cancer.
As for Global Warming, well that has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the idea of not changing you entire lifestyle because of the doomsday prediction of the week. I remember an Indian crying because of trash on the side of the road. I remember that smog was going to cause global cooling and another ice age. I remember the ozone hole was going to cause us all to die from skin cancer. Now I see that global warming is going to cause the average Earth temperature to raise 1.7 degrees C over the next 100 years, and even THAT is suspect!
Besides, you'd think that all these other countries would already be creating gobs of alternative energy since they pay so much more for a Liter of Petro than we pay for a Gallon of Gasoline for all this time!
Gee, that's funny. I live in a small town near Austin now. I am white and a minority. You see, us white folk are a minority around these parts. So don't give me any bullshit about how the white man is holding down everything else, because it's a blatant lie. Well, at least it's not true in Nacogdoches, Joaquin, Center, Beaumont, Houston, SugarLand, Ft. Bend County, Waco, San Antonio, El Paso, nor MacAllen Texas. Nor is it true in New Orleans, Sulfer or Shreveport Louisiana. Now I'm not going to say that racism doesn't exist, but the type of lynching you've described has been extinct for at least thirty years. And while there is still some hangovers around here, such as the ropes in Jena LA, racism is not limited to the south. For that matter, I met more toothless rednecks in Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California than I've ever met anywhere south of Kentucky.
Well, I take part of that back. I've seen some blatant racism come out of Jena LA recently, but it wasn't from white people. It was from a boatload of protesters led "civil rights leaders" calling for the release of six teenagers who ganged up on and beat up another kid. Why are they calling for the release? Because the it was black kids beating up a white kid. So, yeah, racism exists in the South, but not as you described. You see, when white kids gang up on and beat up a black kid, it's called a lynching. When black kids do it to white kids, it's called justified.
And, when visiting my wife's family, one of her older aunts did make fun of someone of a different race. You see, they are Hispanic. She made fun of me for not being able to say their names correctly. Of course, she was quickly reprimanded by everyone else in the family once they were alone. She's been extraordinarily nice ever since.
Well, I've mentioned every place I've ever lived or visited for any length of time. Where is this fictional Jew hating place you described? My guess is that it is in your head. In other words, I'm calling bullshit. If a Jew were hung from a rope anywhere in the South over the past thirty years, it would have made the news bigtime. Got a link to that story? Nope? Then STFU and stop spreading lies about shit you obviously know nothing about.
Obviously things have gone horribly wrong in the last thousand years. But then again we seem to be going in the same direction in the United States, with intelligent design etc. In fact in the article "Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world" sounds a lot like the United States, where over 50% of the population doesn't accept the theory of evolution (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml).
So this is something new? It seems to me that the US is moving away from religion, not towards it. Compare the laws and liberties that we have today and compare them to what we had over the past 100 years. Hell, when I was a child (1970's), I remember "blue laws" that would prevent grocery stores from selling anything other than the absolute necessities. I remember management would place carts to block off the toy and alcohol aisles. And yet, in November, 1971, a company called Intel publicly introduced the world's first single chip microprocessor, the Intel 4004 (U.S. Patent #3,821,715), invented by Intel engineers Federico Faggin, Ted Hoff, and Stan Mazor.
Yeah, I don't recall a great scientific medieval period in the US from 1776 to present.
Sounds exactly like the America's Jesusland, A.K.A. the south.
Not at all. Southern fundamentalists Christians don't cut off your head if you decide you don't want to be Christian any more. They just vote in laws that prohibit you from drinking before noon. Then again, since you compared the two, it is obvious that you are extremely bigoted and ignorant of anything outside your mother's basement. I don't expect you to be able to understand such things.
Shouldn't that be "Wow that's awesome."
Actually, it would be:
"Wow! That's awesome."
Who, what, when, where, why?
Price would seem to be a pretty important detail...
$30 a GB.
Sure, that is possible, but it didn't work too well when Carter tried it. For that matter, the problems with the Carter economy lasted until Reagan's third year in office. Hoover tried that Lase Faire attitude as well, which many credit as a cause for the great depression. Even so, you may have a point if I were comparing tax receipts year by year, but I'm not. The US government has pulled in more money than at any point in history, and this is with a lower tax rate. So I'm not comparing the first quarter of 2007 with just the first quarter of 2006. I'm comparing it with any quarter since 1776! The 2001 recession has nothing to do with it.
My mentioning the post WWII economy was in response to the increase in the economy felt after WWII. No kidding! We were coming out of nearly 20 years of depression!
In fact, that scenario DID happen under Clinton! When he raised tax rates (no he didn't lower it, you really have an interesting memory), all the supply side cuckoos pointed to Laffer Curve and said "you are going to kill economy and lower tax revenue!!!". Instead, we saw one of the greatest economic growth in decades (and corresponding increase in tax revenue which allowed us to actually REDUCE deficit which GWB has failed to do).
Don't blame be! Here is the quote from Clinton's White House Webpage June 26, 2000
* 1981-92. The total Federal tax rate for middle-income families rose from 23.7 percent in 1980 to 24.5 percent in 1992. (Total tax rates include both the employer and employee portion of the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.)
* Today. Under President Clinton, the total Federal tax rate for middle-income families has dropped from 24.5 percent in 1992 to 22.8 percent in 1999 - that's the lowest tax rate since 1978. For families at one-half the median income, the effective Federal tax rate has been slashed from 19.8 percent in 1992 to 14.1 percent in 1999 - that's the lowest tax rate since 1968. And no matter how much conservatives like to call Clinton a flaming liberal, he was extremely conservatives as far as Democrats go.
I hope that we can agree that there is much more to federal tax receipts than tax rates. The Heritage Foundation has a good write up and offers some case studies. I see no point in reprinting the whole article. They put it well with the following: Looking at Case Histories
The effect of tax rates on economic activity should not be overstated. The economy, after all, can be affected significantly by trade policy, regulatory policy, monetary policy, and many other government actions. Even within the context of fiscal policy, tax rates are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.
Keeping all these caveats in mind, there nonetheless is a distinct pattern throughout American history: Simply stated, when tax rates are reduced, the economy prospers, tax revenues grow, and lower-income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden. Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with subpar economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. As for recent data, I offered the following:
Here is a story from USAToday. The deficit for the first four months of the current budget year is down sharply from the same period a year ago as the government continues to benefit from record levels of tax collections. And from HERE: We know this is [literally] yesterday's news, but the state of the US Government budget for April 2007 deserves comment regardless. The Treasury took in a record $383.6 billion in the month, contributing to a surplus of $177.7 billion, the second largest monthly surplus ever. I'm not going to dig up sources that show that Bush cut taxes. That's a given and you shouldn't need a source for that. It may be a coincidence that Bush cuts taxes and the government pulls in record receipts, but that coincidence keeps showing up time and time again in the past 80 years. I think it is fair to say that raising taxes will have a negative effect on the economy, resulting in lower tax receipts.
You are still missing the point. Yes, it is a curve. But NOBODY HAS ANY IDEA WHERE THAT CURVE IS!!! It could very well be that we are on the upslope of the curve where raising the rates would mean more tax revenue. No one can say for sure the curvey is really meaningless.
The fact the GWB cut taxes and revenues climbed tells me that we were on the right side of the curve. We may have crossed the crest and ended up on the left side, but I think that is unlikely.
For instance, during and after WW2, the US economy soared and tax revenues were healthy even thought the top brackets were paying 70% or more.
Of course the economy soared during WW2. Prior to WW2 was the Great Depression! There was no other direction for the economy to go!
So there is no WAY that you can say that increasing the tax rates right now would have a negative impact on the tax revenue. It is HIGHLY likely the modest increase of tax rates WILL increase tax revenue. Most of the historical data supports that.
Historical data from 1976 forward shows that cutting taxes has increased federal revenue. Carter raised taxes, the economy nose dived. Reagan cut taxes, the economy sky rocketed. GHWBush raised taxes, the economy went into recession. Clinton lowered taxes, the economy went up. GWBush cut taxes further, the economy went up further. How much more historical data do you need?
So based your kiddie version of economics and no real data whatsoever, you think it is safe to assume that complex models built by Econ PhDs and real-world evidence is wrong?
No real data? Bush cut taxes and now tax revenues are at record highs. That IS data and real world evidence. It would appear that REAL WORLD evidence supports me. Granted, tax cuts are not the only reason why revenue is up, but taking less out of the GDP causes the GDP to grow. Taking a smaller percentage of a larger gives you larger amount than taking a larger percentage of a smaller amount. (10% of 100,000 is less than 9% of 120,000)
Spending more than you take in is the cause of deficits. Raising spending and lowering revenue at the same time is the worst of all worlds, and the one this administration has chosen. Perhaps it is a political attempt to starve the beast, but it is not sound economic policy.
I don't care how many times you say it, it does not make it true. The government has more revenue than at any point in history. Read the quote from above where it says record levels of tax collections. Also, from the same quote as before For January, the government ran a surplus of $38.2 billion. Spending for the month totaled $222.4 billion while revenues totaled $260.6 billion. I will agree with you that increasing government spending was a bad idea, but don't try to claim that the government has less to spend than it did before. It's simply not true.
Um, the Laffer curve is not an economic model. It is a tax-rate vs tax-revenue model. Even so, it is not the simplest. The simplest is the model you and other Democrats use, which is a straight line. It's the impression that the more you tax, the more you make, which is false.
2. The Laffer curve does not say that lowering tax rates increases tax revenue.
Not exactly. If you are currently on the left side of the curve, then raising taxes will raise revenue. If you are on the right side of the curve, lowering taxes will actually raise revenue. Seeing that Bush lowered taxes and revenue went up, is a strong indicator that we were on the right side of the curve.
3. The Laffer curve says nothing about where optimal tax rates should be.
True. The optimum tax rate fluctuates based on economic and other conditions.
Easy, there are more people in the USA then ever before.
You're kidding, right? And you claim that the Laffer curve is too simple?
To claim your revenue will actually go up is something so brazen that even the very conservative proponents did not (and honest ones still don't) make.
Um... tax revenue DID go up. The deficit for the first four months of the current budget year is down sharply from the same period a year ago as the government continues to benefit from record levels of tax collections...
The amount of revenues collected from October through January were up 9.7% from the same period a year ago, climbing to a record level for the period of $834.1 billion. It appears that the facts don't jive with what you are trying to say here.
So based your kiddie version of economics and no real data whatsoever, you think it is safe to assume that complex models built by Econ PhDs and real-world evidence is wrong?
No real data? Bush cut taxes and now tax revenues are at record highs. That IS data and real world evidence. It would appear that REAL WORLD evidence supports me. Granted, tax cuts are not the only reason why revenue is up, but taking less out of the GDP causes the GDP to grow. Taking a smaller percentage of a larger gives you larger amount than taking a larger percentage of a smaller amount. (10% of 100,000 Spending more than you take in is the cause of deficits. Raising spending and lowering revenue at the same time is the worst of all worlds, and the one this administration has chosen. Perhaps it is a political attempt to starve the beast, but it is not sound economic policy.
I don't care how many times you say it, it does not make it true. The government has more revenue than at any point in history. Read the quote from above where it says record levels of tax collections. Also, from the same quote as before For January, the government ran a surplus of $38.2 billion. Spending for the month totaled $222.4 billion while revenues totaled $260.6 billion. I will agree with you that increasing government spending was a bad idea, but don't try to claim that the government has less to spend than it did before. It's simply not true.
Absolutely. The number one complaint we Americans have is that the IRS doesn't do its job. We all think that it doesn't audit enough people and would be truly satisfied with it if only it were more thorough.
That changes when the people being asked are the ones being audited. Everyone's in favor of making sure the other guy pays his fair share, but that opinion changes rather quickly when they become the other guy.
You are correct that there is much more to the economy than tax rates. The Fed plays a larger role by controlling the amount of currency in the market by adjusting interest rates deciding how much cash to print. Something as simple as weather can have an impact as well (see Katrina's effect on gasoline prices).
My point was not to enter into an economic discussion, but to refute the GGP's point that raising tax rates will increase the amount of money the federal gov't has to spend. Such a statement assumes that a graph representing tax rates vs federal receipts is a straight line. Any first year economics student can tell you otherwise. That graph is a curve. The Laffer curve is an excellent representation of that curve. Yes, that curve moves up and down and left and right based on an infinite number of stimuli, but it still remains a curve in all circumstances.
Just as lowering taxes will not guarantee higher receipts, neither will raising taxes as the GGP stated. But in reference to the economy as a whole, raising taxes will NEVER increase the GDP and is only a good idea if you are on the left side of the curve or you need to cut the amount of currency in the economy to decrease inflation. Neither scenario fits where we are today.
I think the history is that the courts have allowed temporary wartime injustices like this in the past, loss of habeas corpus during the Civil War (if you suggested peace with the South you might be arrested), internment of Germans in WWI, and the internment of Japanese in WWII.
The problem is that the current administration wants to have it both ways, wartime/emergency/crisis powers and wants the domestic life to otherwise behave as if there is no emergency, such as repeatedly cutting taxes, despite deficit spending.
I agree with all of what you say except the bold part, which I feel needs a response. So, AGAIN! Please read and learn the principal of the Laffer curve. I don't want to have to explain it again.
Now, we all know that Bush cut taxes after taking office. We also know that the government has been breaking records with tax receipts. The US government has brought in more money than at any point in history. How can this be? How does lowering taxes man more revenue? Well, as you can see from the Laffer curve, if you are on the right side of the peak, lowering taxes means more revenue. So, higher tax receipts prove we were on the right side of that curve.
So, because of what I've stated here, I think it is safe to assume that raising taxes will actually decrease the amount of money the government pulls in, NOT increase it. So WHY WHY WHY would you want to raise taxes? (Could someone ask this on the next YouTube Democratic debate please)
As for deficit spending... the problem is just that, SPENDING! While tax receipts have gone up, government spending has gone up even faster. This is why we have deficits, not because or lower taxes (See Laffer curve)