I am personally a big fan of sarcasm. I am very aware of what dogma means. Just wasn't sure in what connection you were trying to use it here. It generally means thinking based on faith and not empirical evidence. But the time frame for most people (not just here) is what was for breakfast and what is for dinner. The majority of people everywhere are too lazy to do their homework about just who they are voting for. The neighborhood I grew up in was predominantly Irish/Jewish. Election day came and it didn't matter who was running. Just find the right party along the top and flick the switches below all the way down.

rushtomyleft wrote:I am personally a big fan of sarcasm

Then you'll know that it's a convention on the internet to signify it using some means, such as an emoticon.

I am very aware of what dogma means. Just wasn't sure in what connection you were trying to use it here. It generally means thinking based on faith and not empirical evidence.

You mean stuff like this:

"less government is preferable"

To what? Based on what?

You idea that simply reducing taxes will shrink government is patently false. You do know what a 'deficit' is, don't you? And that the US federal deficit has gone up as taxes have gone down.

Based on historical evidence. How is Cuba doing? The former USSR? Greece? Most of the rest of Europe? England was a huge economic power, that is until the early 20th century.

So the fact that our spending has doubled in the last ten years has had no effect!!!

As for sarcasm I was referring to the 'wise old bird' comment. Unless of course that wasn't being sarcastic. Or maybe I don't know what sarcasm is either.

And finally you are correct once again that simply reducing taxes will not be the answer. It would need to be concurrent with a balanced budget amendment.

As for the AMerican public generally being idiots. maybe that was too strong, but the sentiment and evidence would probably point to that conclusion. Real Housewives of Anywhere, Jersey Shore, almost any reality TV. These shows are booming. Why?

"Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see"

rush

Based on historical evidence. How is Cuba doing? The former USSR? Greece? Most of the rest of Europe?

Today; The most vibrant economies in the West are in Germany, Sweden, Norway , The Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
They all have mixed economies. All are doing measurably better than the US economically at the moment. Especially re debt. There's a myriad of reasons but they all would serve to provide historical evidence that mixed economies, that many on the US right call socailist, can do extremelly well. Even burdened with things like socialized medicine, and lavish (by US standards) social programs....
On the recent "happiness index" they all did pretty well too. (So did the US)
So whats your point exactly?

http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/ ... try-247768

As for happiness, if I didn't need to pay for anything I would be pretty happy also. Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands are fairly homogeneous in their population/religion/culture. As are Germany, New Zealand and Australia to a lesser extent. So to compare them to the U.S as far as happiness is concerned is pretty ridiculous. As for socialism, the other Eurpoean countries that are not faring very well now probably were happy before the chickens came home to roost. No way of telling how the rest of your list will look in a few years. But Germany, Australia and New Zealand are not that 'mixed'. As for Germany, Sweden and Norway I imagine that if they needed to defend themselves without our help, the outcome may be a little different. More to defense less to social programs. Less happy.

rush

As for happiness, if I didn't need to pay for anything I would be pretty happy also

So their high taxes don't count as "paying for anything?"

rushtomyleft wrote:Based on historical evidence. How is Cuba doing? The former USSR? Greece? Most of the rest of Europe? England was a huge economic power, that is until the early 20th century.

The UK is still a majot economic power. We lost it due to over-reliance on 'free trade', lack on investment, military adventure and arms races and... oh, divesting of Empire. Still, despite having a population of about 60M, we are still in the top 10 nations economically.

Most of Europe is still rich. Some countries are very rich, and it's not actually easy to say that it's down to how much 'government' they have. Singapore is a great example of a state that became successful through central planning and under a pretty much one-party state.

Oh, and who knows how well Cuba would do if it's former major trading partner had not given it the cold shoulder (before the USSR made friends with them) and then led a decades long trade embargo?

So the fact that our spending has doubled in the last ten years has had no effect!!!

Oddly, as a proportion of GDP, and accounting for economic cycles the extra spend on foreign wars, it's not much different. tax revenues, however have gone down.

As for sarcasm I was referring to the 'wise old bird' comment. Unless of course that wasn't being sarcastic. Or maybe I don't know what sarcasm is either.

Oh, it was sarcasm. Hence the smiley

And finally you are correct once again that simply reducing taxes will not be the answer. It would need to be concurrent with a balanced budget amendment.

Why not just start with trying to balance the budget without adding more complicated goals? Of course, a balanced budget amendment is all very well, but how does it adjust for the economic cycle, and do you really want a situation where the government has a surplus?

Ronald Reagan doing his best Class Warfare routine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oUa_hVbyW50

In today's environment would the real Ronald Reagan been seen as Republican enough? Maybe. But maybe he just would have been called a RINO and shown the door too.

geojanes wrote:Ronald Reagan doing his best Class Warfare routine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oUa_hVbyW50

In today's environment would the real Ronald Reagan been seen as Republican enough? Maybe. But maybe he just would have been called a RINO and shown the door too.

That's weak and you ought to know better.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

Now you do.

Buffet had an editorial in the Times today. Updated to be topical in the context of the fiscal cliff, but you know his position already:

"So let’s forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if — gasp — capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html

I just hope folks in Washington are listening . . .

geojanes wrote:Buffet had an editorial in the Times today. Updated to be topical in the context of the fiscal cliff, but you know his position already:

"So let’s forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if — gasp — capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html

I just hope folks in Washington are listening . . .

Yup. I hope the GOP gives everything to Obama he wants.

Nothing spells "economic growth" like raising taxes when we're teetering on recession. That will spur growth.

If only we could revisit the exact same conditions as we had in the 50's his position would make sense.

This is just "so brilliant":

Our government’s goal should be to bring in revenues of 18.5 percent of G.D.P. and spend about 21 percent of G.D.P. — levels that have been attained over extended periods in the past and can clearly be reached again. As the math makes clear, this won’t stem our budget deficits; in fact, it will continue them. But assuming even conservative projections about inflation and economic growth, this ratio of revenue to spending will keep America’s debt stable in relation to the country’s economic output.

In the last fiscal year, we were far away from this fiscal balance — bringing in 15.5 percent of G.D.P. in revenue and spending 22.4 percent. Correcting our course will require major concessions by both Republicans and Democrats.

So, spending more than we take in is sustainable?

What specific spending cuts does Buffett propose?

Pretty much the Obama plan to a 't.' Raise taxes and figure out how to cut spending at some other point--like maybe during the next Administration.

Buffett is a hypocrite. I'll believe him as soon as he shows the cancelled checks for his extra contributions to the Treasury.

Doctor Fate wrote:Buffett is a hypocrite.

I expect you also think he's also a socialist. Go ahead and say it, it might make you feel better.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll believe him as soon as he shows the cancelled checks for his extra contributions to the Treasury.

No, you wouldn't.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Buffett is a hypocrite.

I expect you also think he's also a socialist. Go ahead and say it, it might make you feel better.

I don't believe it.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll believe him as soon as he shows the cancelled checks for his extra contributions to the Treasury.

No, you wouldn't.

Actually, I would.

I didn't say I would agree with him--just that I would believe him.

Ah, you passed on my socialist bait. Too bad. It would have been fun.

On your other point, as I've said here before, that attitude is a red herring. American's are supposed to follow the law and pay the tax they owe. No one pays more taxes than they owe, nor should they. Better to give it away (as Buffet has done, much more than would ever be taxed BTW) to causes they believe in.

Yet, I believe that Buffet is pushing this out of self-interest. He knows it is unlikely he could have amassed his fortune anywhere else, and that the current fiscal imbalance is a problem for the country, and for him personally since so much of his net worth is tied up in American enterprises. To paraphrase from another time, what's good for Warren Buffet is good for America and vice-versa.