Thought for the Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Broncofan, as an intelligent and perceptive American, can you confirm that there hasn't been a fiscally responsible Republican in the White House since Eisenhower?

---

Fiscal conservatism doesn't consist of not spending money, Stavros. The USA has plenty of money, and if we run out all we have to do is print more and dare anyone to do anything about it. Our debt ceiling is as high as we need it to be, we run this planet.

Fiscal conservatism defines how you spend the money you spend.

If we spend $15 billion on an aircraft carrier, okay, now we have a $15 billion boat. Net loss: 0 dollars.
If we spend $10 billion on a wall across the southern border, we have a $10 billion wall. Net loss: 0 dollars.
If we spend $28 billion flying to the moon, we have $28 billion worth of international dick-measuring. Net loss: 0 dollars.

BUT - if we spend $430 billion annually on welfare, food stamps, and section 8 housing (tip: we do) for people who simply refuse to get with the program, the net loss is incalculable. Not only have we given away the money, we've also given away $430 billion worth of reasons not to work for a living, $430 billion worth of reasons not to get an education, $430 billion worth of don't give a shit, and $430 billion worth of do it all again next year.

On a smaller scale, the difference between fiscal conservatism and liberal spending is the difference between a private citizen spending a million dollars on a house, or a million dollars on cocaine, whiskey, and hookers. Long-term home for your family? Or world's worst hangover and money just gone?

The conservative view is that people don't like to work, and must be motivated to do so. The liberal view is that people shouldn't have to work if they don't want to and should be supported by the government if that's their choice. Which view sounds more like a winning formula? Which sounds more like sound financial reasoning?

And which view sounds like a way to buy votes from poor people and line your own pockets at the expense of your country's future?

Democrats who actually understand what liberal fiscal policy means (meaning none of you guys) are truly scum of the earth. Luckily for the Democratic Party though, most of their constituents are mouth-breathing boneheads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Interesting choice of words, though not exactly surprising for a man who is well on the way to rationalising fascism as a legitimate response to democratic outcomes you don't like.

Has that whole 'birther' thing has been expunged from your memory like so much else, or was that another legitimate response like January 6?

---

I'll play fascism. Can I be Il Duce?

Also, I never said Jan. 6 was a legitimate response, you just now said that for the first time it's been said ITT. I do happen to know a couple things about Jan. 6 that you don't know, since I had two close friends there. For example, I know that many of the people who ended up on the grounds of the Capitol itself were pushed there by the crowd - my friend Tony told me he ALMOST had no choice but to allow himself to be pulled up onto the steps of the Capitol, or fall to the ground. Luckily he managed to escape out the back of the crowd. I know that the two friends of mine who attended the rally went there with no intention whatsoever of rioting, that the rioting itself was a spontaneous event that seemed to arise from the movement and mood of the crowd. And I know that Trump said nothing whatsoever to encourage rioting - not from my friends but because I watched the speech, which you could do just as easily to assuage your doubts on the matter. The man called for a peaceful protest, quite clearly, there's no gray area, no conviction forthcoming, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I would agree with you. At least I have not seen a Republican president who qualifies as fiscally conservative. Deregulation-maybe but they haven't really accomplished their so-called end of getting rid of cumbersome regulations that get in the way of commerce but have instead allowed businesses to externalize costs. Free Trade-except for the fact that their most recent President wanted to start a trade war with China based simply on his feelings about the Chinese. Balanced Budget-pretty sure it's just something they say during a Democratic administration when they oppose programs but they will happily support tax cuts that have no beneficial effect for the economy.

---

Thank you for this extension of views. I think that what the UK and the US have in common is an almost paranoid fear of debating taxation in public as a public policy in need of reform. The only discussion seems to be whether or not to raise or lower taxes, whereas we have complex layers of taxation, and it is in the detail that most people don't undestand that I think decisions are made which ought to be reconsidered. And as you used the word 'Fair' and I think it is Fairness that is rarely if ever brought into the discussion, and not just because 'Justice as Fairness' is a central feature of Rawls Theory, given that Rawls remains the most crucial thinker on these matters to set alongside Nozick, a debate that remains pertinent for all Liberal Democracies, not just the US.

I was once told by the senior executive of a well-known UK company 'we make all our profit on tax' which was actualy not true, but he meant that the company was able to claim so much money in tax rebates that the proportion of actual tax they paid was significantly short of the headline figure. In the US, Joseph Stiglitz has analysed the data to claim most of the top companies there rarely if ever pay more than 10% corporation tax, so the headline figure might be useful in Presidential debates when a candidate can promise to reduce corporation tax to make US companies more competitive, but its just noise.

What I don't know is whether or not when corporation tax was vastly higher in the 1950s companies could claw back tax in rebates. What astonishes me about Trump, is that he probably makes more money from tax rebates owing to business failure than he does profit derived from business success. This appears to be the case with his permanently failing golf clubs in Scotland, for which he is liable to pay tax in the US. This might not be fair, but Trump didn't propose changing tax law to relieve Americans from paying tax on business interests outside the country -because he actually makes money from faiure?

It seems that if a large company fails the taxpayer will compensate it to the tune of millions of $$, whereas if a married couple open a store on Main St but can't make a profit, they will be forced to shut it down and pay whatever they owe to the bank and any investors they had. I don't see why the taxpayer should ever reward failure, but it is also the case that many if not most of Trump's properties were developed using the taxpayer loans that Federal Governments intended to be used to promote new businesses, presumably for emerging entrepreneurs. One way and another, Trump has legally robbed the American people of their money, which may be why he treats US citizens as 'dopes and babies', insulting and abusing Americans as often as he can, just for the hell of it, and because he gets a kick out of belittling people he is convinced are inferior to himself.

We have similar loop-holes in our tax arrangements in the UK, and as far as I know they exist following negotiations between Govt and Business in which the latter effectively demands rebate allowances to maintain and stimulate commerce, just as the banks here became 'too big to fail' and the taxpayer forked out staggering sums to protect them from oblivion. Libertarians may make grandiloquent speeches in the Commons, or write chapters in provocative pamphlets, but one notes that the very same people who have promoted Brexit as an opportunity to abolish regulations have so far found business has more of them than before -because of Brexit-, and with the eye-watering sums of money spent on the Coronavirus in terms of health care and poverty relief, the romantic aim of abolishing taxes is not on the agenda -not even Value Added Tax, which we only have because it was part of the Treaty the UK signed in 1972 to become members of the European Economic Community.

There are many other aspects of this we could discuss- the role tax has played in social and political change, for example, as at one time protests over taxation were in this country a direct challenge to the authority of the Monarch, so have been viewed as radical protest aligned with a nascent socialism, whereas tax protests in the US led to a Liberal revolution. We know that Washington wanted to disband the Continental Army after the first Revolutionary War, because its evolution into an army of the US would require a tax to fund it. I think even today, there could be, may indeed be, a proposal to disband the US Army on the basis that the Continental US is not liable to invasion, but that as the 2nd Amendment refers to an 'armed militia', then such locally raised militia coud easily replace the US Army. Again, as underwater drones, and aerial drones could replace most of the US fleet and Air Force, significant levels of taxation could be saved with the modernizaton of the armed forces, though I doubt anyone in the two parties that govern the US has the courage to talk about military reform, given the near relgious status that the military has, setting aside Trump's snide remarks as the petulant, childish rubbish that they are.

The costs of the US military are surely unsustainable, given the simple economic fact that if you spend $1 billion on an aircraft carrier, not only does it lose a percentage of its asset value the moment it it launched, it then costs the taxpayer probably another $1 billion a year in personnel costs, maintainance, etc. A nuclear weapon must be the most ridiculous weapon ever invented -hundreds of millions of dollars for a piece of kit that is never going to be used, unless Putin and Lukashenko realize they can at last generate those sums to build up their arsenals, and cream off 5% along the way.

I don't see either Keir Starmer here, or Kamala Harris there opening a new debate on taxation, and I think they are missing an opportunity to generate a demand for change, because one thing that might have emerged from the Covid-19 experience is a re-evaluation of what matters, and I think the fat cats who have sponged trillions off the taxpayer in return for so little are vulnerable to a re-ordering of priorities, and that is time for everyone to pay a fair share of tax, and to use those taxes for the Common Good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

blah blah blah blah taxes

---

There's an extremely simple reason corporations don't pay much in taxes, Stavros. If you tax them too much they will move to another country and you will get zero taxes and lose jobs. The Mom & Pop store on Main Street doesn't have that option.

Surprises me that you seem to be completely unaware of the current activities of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. They are working on a plan to implement a global corporate tax so this becomes less of a problem. 136 of the 140 sovereign nations on Planet Earth have already signed on to participate. Maybe they don't cover that topic in People magazine or wherever you usually get your information.

https://taxfoundation.org/global-tax-agreement/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

You know why Jan. 6 happened Flighty? Because people absolutely could not accept that their fellow countrymen were stupid enough to elect Joe Biden as President. Cognitive dissonance, it didn't seem viable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

I'll play fascism. Can I be Il Duce?

Also, I never said Jan. 6 was a legitimate response, you just now said that for the first time it's been said ITT.

---

You went pretty close. You have also supported extra-legal violence on the pretext of preserving order which is pretty much how the fascists started out in Italy and Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Fiscal conservatism defines how you spend the money you spend.

If we spend $15 billion on an aircraft carrier, okay, now we have a $15 billion boat. Net loss: 0 dollars.
If we spend $10 billion on a wall across the southern border, we have a $10 billion wall. Net loss: 0 dollars.
If we spend $28 billion flying to the moon, we have $28 billion worth of international dick-measuring. Net loss: 0 dollars.

BUT - if we spend $430 billion annually on welfare, food stamps, and section 8 housing (tip: we do) for people who simply refuse to get with the program, the net loss is incalculable. Not only have we given away the money, we've also given away $430 billion worth of reasons not to work for a living, $430 billion worth of reasons not to get an education, $430 billion worth of don't give a shit, and $430 billion worth of do it all again next year.

---

As usual, you've got the economics the wrong way around. If the government spends money on building something that does not serve a socially-productive purpose that is a waste of real resources which can't be used for something else. If the government makes a transfer payment that does not use up real resources - purchasing power is just transferred to someone else. You can argue about whether they are a deserving recipient, but that's a different issue.

Incidentally, why did you choose your profile picture?. It always seems unintentionally appropriate to me, because is basically screams "delusional idiot".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I would agree with you. At least I have not seen a Republican president who qualifies as fiscally conservative.

---

It's also notable that the past 5 recessions in the US developed under Republican administrations, talking into account that there's a lag of a few months. It's amazing how myths about conservative governments being better on the economy persist regardless of evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

True but I did learn his dad has had 4 at fault accidents in a year and won't give up his license. Sadly the moral of that story is somehow that Joe Biden is unfit to be President.

---

Personal anecdotes are definitely his 'go to' strategy. It's always a handy distraction when the overall evidence doesn't support your argument. As we know, people who compile inconvenient data are part of that giant left-wing conspiracy.

More generally, it's part of his 'flooding the zone with shit' strategy - put up such a blizzard of nonsense that people get tired of rebutting it. Then you can tell yourself that you are invincible in argument, which is probably his real objective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

For example, I know that many of the people who ended up on the grounds of the Capitol itself were pushed there by the crowd - my friend Tony told me he ALMOST had no choice but to allow himself to be pulled up onto the steps of the Capitol, or fall to the ground. Luckily he managed to escape out the back of the crowd. I know that the two friends of mine who attended the rally went there with no intention whatsoever of rioting, that the rioting itself was a spontaneous event that seemed to arise from the movement and mood of the crowd. And I know that Trump said nothing whatsoever to encourage rioting - not from my friends but because I watched the speech, which you could do just as easily to assuage your doubts on the matter. The man called for a peaceful protest, quite clearly, there's no gray area, no conviction forthcoming, sorry.

---

Not everyone who was there is your friend Tony. Just like not every 79 year old is your dad. There were people there who wanted to attack lawmakers and had telegraphed their plans in advance. Anyone who was there to protest the election was a dishonest moron. There never was any evidence of widespread voter fraud and Trump could not even keep his story straight about how it took place. The spate of frivolous lawsuits his cohorts filed were enough to make me question their sanity.

Trump's phone call to Raffensperger was about as improper as any official phone call I've heard. He was threatening him with potential liability for certifying his loss in Georgia. He kept insisting there was fraud to the tune of tens of thousands of votes without specifying the basis of his knowledge or any other details. I know you operate in a fact free universe but this was someone who was operating with the intent to spread misinformation to overturn an election he lost fair and square. He was using the power of his office to threaten someone performing his constitutional duty. If his morally bankrupt actions violated laws he should be prosecuted.

You say you never said Jan. 6 was a legit response. Response to what? Votes count just like dead children count even if you cover your eyes and ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Personal anecdotes are definitely his 'go to' strategy. It's always a handy distraction when the overall evidence doesn't support your argument. As we know, people who compile inconvenient data are part of that giant left-wing conspiracy.

---

It's kind of contagious as well. There have been a couple of times where I've thought of an anecdote that's on point and then I think "nah, that doesn't prove anything and it just sounds like I want to talk about myself." But sometimes the temptation wins:) My dad has an excellent driving record for instance.

There are some indications in the press that the Supreme Court is, in effect, going to 'return' the Abortion issue to the States and not make a definitive ruling. Literalists argue the Constitution makes no provision either way, and thus State's Rights must remain intact with no interference from the Court.

An intriguiging argument that I don't think Justice Kavanaugh dealt with, suggests that the Mississippi action is motivated not by law, but religion -I don't know, but is this in itself unConstitutional? Making laws that protect religion is one thing, imposing laws on women because of one religious claim surely cannot be legal? I ask because I don't know.

As for the actuality in how many cases would a reversal of Roe v Wade be summarised in three words: Rapists Have Rights. To be precise -having brutalized a woman through rape, the Rapist then demands that she bear his Rape-Baby, with the joyful approval of fake Christians like Mike Pence, who publicly declare the rights of the unborn child, deliberately not stating loud and clear that the unborn child has more Rights than the pregnant woman, who, on becoming pregnant ceases to be a Citizen of the United States, and instead becomes the vessel of violent Rapists and in other cases, Incestuous daddies.

Given that Donald Trump can legally marry a 12 year old girl in the US, that a father making his daughter pregnant can force her to bear the child without any regard for her needs or desires, and that Rapists Have Rights that must be respected, one wonders if the US has any moral creatures who can tell the difference between Right and Wrong, who can see quite clearly that if it is wrong to end a pregnancy through abortion on the basis that 'life is sacred', then it must also be wrong to abort the life of a prisoner on 'death row'.

The US is marching backwards, for if Mississippi can in effect reverse the legality of Roe v Wade, there is no reason why it should not go further and make same-sex marriage illegal, and, in time, restore the right of Legacy Americans to buy and sell Black people as their slaves, to labour in the fields, bow to Massa, and sing happy songs.