milkchaser

Supply Side Economics Contradictions Live on in Washington

Explain to me again why the gov't owns my money? Explain to me again why I am vassal to Congress? Explain to me again why there is always a justification for keeping tax rates high and never an excuse to cut spending?

Russia: Now vs. 1998

Only 44% (so far). I feel so much better. Add to Vanderpool's list the insecurity of property over there (i.e. what Putin wants he takes, e.g. BP and Mechel).

Pulp Fiction: The Latest GDP Revisions

I think 1.2% inflation is closer to reality than 10%.

Republicans Better for the Economy? Pure Fiction!

The lowest decade on that graph falls in the 1970s. Remember what halcyon days those were! Also, it is fundamentally misleading to divide the graph based on the party of the Presidency. Congress controls both taxation and spending. Congress alone can balance the budget.

Delusions of Debt

It's one thing to argue that the extraordinary event of an airplane crashing into buildings and burning was not the sole or primary cause of said buildings' destruction. But it is lunacy to suggest that the planes did not hit the buildings.

One knows that the discussion has devolved when Ron Paul supporters weigh in against the Fed without offering explanation (I guess they think the Fed practices evil magick). But when the 9/11 truthers get involved, further discussion is not possible. They are nutters -- disconnected from reality.

Russia Looks Better on Paper Than in Real Life

"Adjsut for standard of living and you will arrive to the conclusion that living standards there are not far off those in the USA"

I think you mean "adjust for cost of living". That said, I disagree. Little things like reliably delivered electricity and water and better quality available goods make US more desirable. Also, there's something to be said for less corruption, more freedom of speech and free elections. It's not quantifiable, but they're part of one's standard of living. US has it. Putin's subjects do not.

If US standard of living and Russia's are comparable, why are Americans not flocking to get in to Russia? Learning Russian is arguably easier than learning English (though not nearly as useful outside Eastern Europe).

I love Russia. It's sad to see it revert to belligerence and state control.

I.O.U.S.A. Movie Is Well-Done and Informative

If Buffet's maid could do what Buffet could do, she'd be a billionaire, too (eventually). There's no law against her buying the same stocks he does.

I.O.U.S.A. Movie Is Well-Done and Informative

Kelly, I believe Buffet's point is that his cleaning lady pays more as a %-age of her income. No way she pays more at the bottom line. Buffet can pay all he wants. All he has to do is write the check. Why doesn't he? But the top 50% of earners pay 96% of all federal income tax. That's a fact and you can look it up. It's nothing new.

The rich may pay a smaller percentage of their income, but they still shell out lots of dough. The money they don't get to keep is money they don't get to invest, spend or otherwise employ. Is that money best spent by Congress? How many jobs created or sustained per dollar spent by Congress vs. per dollar spent by private investors? How productive are gov't workers vs. non-gov't workers?

I'm actually very much against raising taxes, but if you want to maximize the revenue haul (as well as economic productivity) you would raise rates on poor people. It would not be considered fair, but you could raise enough dough to do anything gov't could want to do.

It's a lousy idea, but it proves that people are not serious about erasing the IOUs through taxation or they'd propose a shared-pain approach. They propose soaking the rich, but the money just ain't there. To raise serious moolah, you have to skim from the wide shallow ocean of low-earners rather than the very narrow, very deep rivulets of high-earners. Plus, sharing the pain would transfer pressure on Congress to reduce spending. As logical as this is, it would never fly in a democracy. "Soak the rich" is a much easier sell.

My point is that the only solution is to force Congress by Constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Any other solution harms the poor. If you tax the poor, they are directly harmed. If you tax corporations and the rich, you harm everybody else indirectly (through job loss and lower economic output). And Congress is not going to volunteer to cut spending, they just won't. As xsuddensam pointed out, their job is to get re-elected. You have to take the deficit spending option off the table.

But xsuddensam is wrong that McCain spouts the same old rhetoric. He is a proven spending slasher. He ran on that back in 2000. We'd have been better off in most ways if he'd won the GOP nomination back then, despite his refusal to back economy boosting tax rate cuts.

Better late than never.

I.O.U.S.A. Movie Is Well-Done and Informative

Here's an idea. You want to balance the budget and eliminate the debt? Make everybody, including poor people, pay federal taxes. This will work because a) there are so many more people currently not paying much and b) once people feel the pain of even small increases in their taxes, they'll get serious about wasteful spending.

As for BigBagel's solution #9, it is not clear that foreign wars such as those the US is now fighting in the Middle East are not also protecting the USA and its vital interests (by protecting the oil supply).

I.O.U.S.A. Movie Is Well-Done and Informative

So I guess it would not be a good idea to add yet another gov't entitlement program like the innocuously mis-named "single payer program" touted by Barack Obama. How can we rein in spending when, as Obama frequently tells us, we are not doing enough "for the least of these my brethren". The problem is obvious: the rich are not paying enough. They may pay 90% of federal income tax, but that's not enough! (or so we're told).

Can we get a balanced budget amendment passed, please? Can somebody convince the American people that the chief beneficiary of the Social Security system is not grandma, it's Congress? The main difference between real T-bonds and the fuzzy $53 trillion liability the gov't supposedly "owes" us for Social Security is that the gov't can renege on the deal at any time without the consequences of defaulting on a bond.

A Closer Look at Income Tax and the Rich

Raising taxes on billionaires would not save Social Security. There are not enough of them. It's also not "fair" (as Pretzel Logic points out) unless one also raises their SS benefits accordingly, so where is the savings. SS was supposed to be a social insurance, not welfare. If it had been run as an annuity from the start, we would not be in this mess. As it is, SS provides a horrible return on investment, no sane person would volunteer to participate in it.

Pretzel Logic -- great album, btw.

Delusions of Debt

What does that mean, "Credit Cards equal hidden income"? Are you being facetious? In what way is taking on debt (an increase in liability) equivalent to income? It is the opposite.

Lawrence Lindsey's Angry Fannie/Freddie WSJ Editorial

I worry that Fannie and Freddie will continue to use their incredibly effective lobbying power to protect the interests of their shareholders (and especially the incompetent, overpaid executives) to the detriment of the taxpayers. No doubt those in Congress who carry water for FNM and FRE will put pressure on the new regulator. That regulator may or may not be immune to Congressional pressure, may or may not protect taxpayer interest.

As for this being a Republican problem, well, Fannie and Freddie's protectors can be found in both parties (including the current Majority).

Delusions of Debt

Mr. Quinn implies that guaranteeing Fannie & Freddie's $5 trillion of debt is equivalent or even like the $9.6 trillion in national debt. It is not. A bare fraction of the mortgage debt will default and it is backed by collateral of some value. Not knowing the certain value of that collateral does not imply that it has zero value.

The problem with Fannie & Freddie is not that they loaned money to people who bought houses. That would have happened in any case. The problem with them is that create a moral hazard by socializing debt and that they provide very little benefit to the taxpayer, some benefit to their shareholders and an undeserved payout to the incompetent executives.

The author finds fault with Iraq War spending. Is there not some value to the nearly seven years without a terrorist attack on US interests? The last attack in 2001 was quite costly. If indeed the Iraq War purchases security, it is worth the expense.

That said, it is hard to disagree with the conclusion that Congress spends too much and has proven to be reckless stewards of the economy. Leaving aside Iraq War spending (which is arguably necessary), Bush has disappointed most fiscal conservatives by not addressing Congressional overspending.

David Lentz absolutely nails the problem: apathetic, uneducated, gullible voters.

Joyful Alternative seems none to joyful, and is asking for even more gov't services. What did we get from the Iraq War? More than dead people. 25 million free people (and at least one of the Iraqis deserved to die -- he and his sons -- good riddance to them).

carey_jim: I do not see big business as nefarious entities. When business succeeds, so do Americans. These businesses are not oligarchies. They are shareholder owned (mostly). Buy their stock and share in their success.

The problem with Ron Paul is that he is an awful politician. The problem with the big spenders in Congress is that they are great politicians.

Ukraine: Overlooked, Yet a Promising Emerging Market

Last summer, I saw an ad in an Odessa bank window (in English!) offering 10% APR on savings deposits -- not CDs, just deposits. It was inviting, but there's nothing like FDIC over there. Likewise, Ukraine has a ways to go as far as protecting private property in the courts. Bribes are common and effective over there. The people have not come to trust or expect rule of law.