Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (631407)	10/12/2011 3:07:31 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578299

robert Rerich lololol what a loser, short man problem

To: bentway who wrote (631407)	10/12/2011 3:45:24 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578299

1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and have dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke. Dr. Reich should take a course in Econometrics, although I have a feeling the math might be a bit much for him. Real wages are not an appropriate metric. 2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth. False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.) So, we presume that GDP Growth is in a simple linear relationship with tax rates? 3. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next. Government jobs do not create productivity. Only private sector jobs do that. Government jobs are overhead that suck money out of the economy. Government can't create productive jobs. 4. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy. Untrue. With so many Americans out of work, budget cuts now will shrink the economy. They’ll increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues. That will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The first priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning vigorously, should we turn to cutting the deficit. Getting jobs growing again should be the priority. Unfortunately, there is never, throughout our history, any evidence that government can cause job growth. At best, it can create an environment that doesn't hamper it. 5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast. One need only look at a pie chart of budget expenditures to see that this statement is demonstrably false. One of the best ways of slowing these costs is to use Medicare and Medicaid’s bargaining power over drug companies and hospitals to reduce costs Except we're already doing this and costs are just shifted to private insurers. We know that and have known it for decades now. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers, we should make Medicare available to everyone. Medicare's admin costs are not lower when measured according to the standards used in the industry (PPPM or PMPM). Only when measured in total, which is not a useful measure (and the reasons PPPM and PMPM were developed). 6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800. Of course it is. Anyone can look at it and see it is. And he says, "Don't believe it?" 7. It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax. Wrong. There’s nothing unfair about it. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else. Everyone can have his/her own view on this. Reich is entitled to his, which is from the POV of a socialist. Others will see it differently.

To: bentway who wrote (631407)	10/23/2011 9:46:35 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578299

No whoppers there, just a collection of statements, some of which are true, and some of which are partially true, or basically true but exaggerated. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. A better way to phrase it would be that lower taxes are beneficial (at least once you get past the amount of taxes needed to cover the effort to keep basic order and security, and to provide the the clearest cased of important public goods). That also applies to taxes on the rich. measured by the real median wage Real median household wages, which don't cover all compensation. Also average household size is down. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Which did harm the economy, but no nearly as much as those rates would have if most very wealthy people actually had to pay them. fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket Which amounts to a lot of small businesses, and a large portion of the small business jobs created by unincorporated businesses. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Generally true, at least in the long run, unless perhaps your preferentially cutting the most useful employees and the most important parts of government. Not that the number of jobs is really the best way to measure economic well being and the health of the economy. We could have the government pay half the country to dig holes and the other half to fill them in, and we'd have full employment, even if we might be starving... It means fewer government workers Which is one way it benefits the economy. Fewer government workers means less pulling money out of the private sector with taxes and borrowing. It means more workers available for jobs that are determined by market need rather than politics. It means fewer workers imposing regulatory costs on the economy, and fewer people supporting government having even more money and power so as to secure their own pay and benefits. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Of course they are major drivers of deficits. They are major drives of spending, and the increase in spending is the major driver of the deficits. They are the fastest growing very large government programs, and if they are not changed, going forward they (along with the payments on the increasing debt) will be the overwhelming drivers of the deficit. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers Neither true, not relevant. Its not relevant because the point was about driving the deficit. The percentage on administrative costs doesn't determine the extent the programs drive the deficit, the total spending on the programs does. As for not true - See Message 27318492 Message 27318502 coyoteblog.com blog.heritage.org Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It is a scheme that uses money from new people to pay those who put in money previously. Its exactly a Ponzi scheme. But while the basic setup is a Ponzi scheme and important difference is that the feds can force new people in to it, which helps avoid collapse both directly, and because they don't have to be so extravagant in payouts or even promises to the earlier people in order to get them to join. It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax. "Unfair" isn't an objective thing. Its not something that can normally be labeled true or false in any objective ways. Fair for taxes could mean paying according to ability (which would have the rich pay a lot more, whatever the perverse incentives and negative consequences such a move would create), to a more normal progressive tax system like the one we have, to a flat tax with everyone paying the same rate, to a head tax with everyone paying the same amount, to some sort of scheme to charge people based on the government resources they use, to no tax at all since its not fair that people have their income or wealth forcibly taken from them. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else. Lower-income Americans pay out a smaller share of their income in total federal taxes of all types than the middle class and a much lower share than those who's income put them in the top two percent.