Black men are great poker players.

Well, he doesn't want to dump an extra 50 billion into the debacle in Iraq, so he'll save us all some money there, won't he?

So, we're getting a tax cut for all that money he's "saving" us?

Any doubt we'd see Dawn's adoring gaze if this freak's dead, souless eyes could reflect?

Sure, katie. Democrats will cut $100 billion annually by pulling us out of Iraq, and increase spending by $1 trillion annually to get all the social programs they want.

Social programs will help and some won't...just the numbers. Yet, I do think the billions we have used to catch Osama are great...wait...we haven't done that yet. We also will need a lot more money going to social programs like helping our hurt troops who have come back in horrible shape...both physically and mentally. Nuff said. As for a tax break...piffft....check out whose getting it now...the same people who are running the big companies we are giving the million upon million of dollar contracts to. Dear God save me from these idots.

Paul Darden and Phil Ivey rule the felt.

Coincidentally, joaquin, war also helps some and doesn't help others. Hurt: Saddam Hussein and his sons, the Taliban, al Qaeda. Helped: 25 million Iraqis and 25 million Afghanis.

Just the numbers, you know.

We haven't spent billions just to catch Osama, so you can kindly stop the hyperbole and focus on actual *facts*, all right? Our strategy has been correct to take our focus off him. Osama is in hiding and therefore neutralized.

http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/when-war-on-terror-gets-toughdemocrats.html

Why bother cutting and searing a head of the Hydra when the Hydra hides the head in the ground? Our efforts are better spent on the other heads who are actually doing something: Zawahiri, for example, since he's now al Qaeda's real leader. Osama's just a figurehead now, hiding and useless.

Now, regarding social programs, you forget the simple economics lesson that if government spends $1, that necessarily takes $1 away from the rest of the economy. Have you ever considered that if Democrats have their way, they *will* (not might) bankrupt the rest of the economy for all these social programs?

I didn't say anything about tax breaks, but let me give you a bit of an economics lesson here. The money that governments spend doesn't come out of thin air. Money that "the rich" pay in taxes means that the rest of us can't avail ourselves of it, whether by employment or borrowing. Hint: your mortgage, auto loan, etc., did not come from the middle class, let alone "the poor."

http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/eating-rich-or-just-soaking-them.html

Oh, and if only "the rich" are getting tax breaks, explain how a family of 4, making $50K a year as a household, will owe $2000 more a year in federal income taxes once those evil Bush tax cuts expire?

The simple economic fact is that if Democrats have their way, sure, every American will have health insurance and all these government-supplied benefits, at the cost of a bankrupted private sector. Most people won't be paying taxes to fund the social programs, but they'll pay in other ways: "the rich" won't have as much money for consumption spending and saving. So, say goodbye to all the construction and landscaping jobs (which are well-paying for blue-collar folks), waiters, jobs in the "luxury" sector (cars, jewelry, boats). Tell us, then, what will these people do, now that "the rich" have no money to pay for the jobs? Oh yes, and kiss goodbye to borrowing money for a house or car, since "the rich" won't have any to save in bank accounts to be lent to you. Kiss your retirement account goodbye, as "the rich" won't have money to invest in new companies, so stock prices will tumble. What will you do then, pray tell, rely on the government for more money?

Q.E.D.

Well, in accordance with your wish, may God save you from yourself, except that as Jefferson noted, "God himself will not save men against their wills."

Perry, the US economy is not in great shape at the moment: fact.
It was in better shape under Clinton (gag): fact.
You seem to be describing the 'trickle-down' economic effect, which I thought as a concept was not a true reflection of what happened under Reaganomics.
As to kissing goodbye to "your retirement account", isn't that usually because the fund managers (not blue collar workers or 'big' government) find a way to screw over these funds to their (and the shareholders) benefit? As Chris Rock put it "I paid into a pension, and all I got left with was a pen! That ain't right!"

As to the post, I think it was a joke on brady's part, and a compliment, that Obama is a canny player. But hey, lets not let the fact that he can face down formidable opposition get in the way of a knocking post.

bryan,

Do you believe that higher taxes is generally better for the economy ?

Sorry, bryan, but you picked the wrong fight here. However, you'd have to learn sooner or later not to argue economics with me.

Since the *mild* recession of 2001, the U.S. has had uninterrupted economic growth. Actually, with the exception of a few quarters in 2001 and 1990-1991, it's had uninterrupted growth since 1983. Its growth today is steady and across the entire economiy, whereas the growth of the Clinton years was a pure tech bubble. Even housing is still doing very well, but you have to ignore the cherry-picked examples in the news. Phoenix and Salt Lake City are booming, with plenty of jobs related to housing. Plenty in New York, as well.

Unemployment is 4.6%, which even the most Keynesian of economists might think is "too low" (i.e. inflationary).

Jobs lost in housing are offset by job gains in health care and food service -- which can't be all bad, because average hourly earnings still went up.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Don't believe the hype about the housing industry, which is a mere fraction of the total economy. The housing industry suffers while the money shifts to other profitable ventures. Do you see that if economic output stays the same, and one sector declines, the other sectors necessary increase? The economy is correcting itself, as it always does. This is despite that the Fed is directly responsible for the housing industry booming and then having to "bust" as part of correction.

If the U.S. economy is not in great shape, then how are France and Germany doing? Japan? You'll probably point to China, which has severe banking infrastructure problems. Their banking system would have collapsed if it weren't for all our Treasury securities they bought to use as collateral. And even China's economy is nowhere near the magnitude of the United States'. It may be growing faster, but it would take years to catch up with the United States. The U.S. economy is still 5 times larger than China's, with a quarter of the population. For having, what, 4% or 5% of the global population, the U.S. in 2006 still output 27.5% of world GDP.

http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/thou-shalt-not-fear-false-prophets.html

"Trickle down" is an inaccurate, in fact absurd verb used to describe the fact that "the rich" cannot keep their money separate from everyone else. "The rich" do not hide money in mattresses: they either spend it or save it. Liberals like to throw out statistics like 1% of the population owning 90% of the wealth. They either don't realize or willfully ignore that if that wealth simply disappeared, so would jobs for the other 99%. Again, "the rich" either spend or save their wealth, so their wealth circulates right back into the economy. When "the rich" spend money, they buy goods and services from others. When they save money, it becomes investment capital, or money lent to everyone else. Either way, this creates jobs for everyone else.

Now regarding retirement funds, you've bought into the mainstream media myths of rampant looting by fund managers. What you're thinking of are corporate executives who committed fraud by deceiving investors and the general public about the company's finances. On the other hand, fund managers can't loot, because they get paid by performance. Once in a while you'll have a company liquidate a mutual fund, and fire the fund manager. I'm trying to remember the name of the kid, mid-20s, who was doing very well with his own fund, but only for a short time. It happens. When you look at funds, don't just look at the stars, but how long the manager has been there. Is he some hotshot who got an Ivy League MBA 5 years ago and has ridden the overall market upswing, or is he a seasoned manager who survived the tech bubble?

I don't blame workers for any funds' failures, so I'm not sure what you were getting at. But I do blame workers for not saving enough for themselves. Look at the auto workers, who were stupid enough to think that Ford's and GM's and Chrysler's profits would continually increase and give them insane returns on their pension. What they should have done is save money for themselves, not rely on their employers' future growth.

My point was that if Democrats have their way and tax "the rich" to where they have no wealth, stock prices will plunge. What will people do then, rely purely on government for retirement? And what will government do, raise taxes further on the rich? It's already not working, because the pyramid scheme is collapsing. Social Security will fail by 2017 at the latest because there are too many retirees and not enough workers.

But hey, lets not let the fact that he can face down formidable opposition get in the way of a knocking post.

Oh Yeah! He's too cheap (and pussy) to put money up to bluff in penny ante' poker! That definitely means he will be tough, uncompromising, and wise in standing up to your idols (bloodthirsy, Islamofascist Nazis)!

Momma drank lots o'moonshine carrying your ass eh?

Hurt: Saddam Hussein and his sons, the Taliban, al Qaeda. Helped: 25 million Iraqis and 25 million Afghanis.

Dear God...did Saddam become a player in the world again? I think not...I think there are hundreds of Iraqis killing the boys over there...stupid...don't you watch or read?

We haven't spent billions just to catch Osama, so you can kindly stop the hyperbole and focus on actual *facts*, all right? Our strategy has been correct to take our focus off him. Osama is in hiding and therefore neutralized.

http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/when-war-on-terror-gets-toughdemocrats.html

Why bother cutting and searing a head of the Hydra when the Hydra hides the head in the ground? Our efforts are better spent on the other heads who are actually doing something: Zawahiri, for example, since he's now al Qaeda's real leader. Osama's just a figurehead now, hiding and useless.

Dear God. When will you learn about all the cells he has out there. God...please help this individual know the importance of this man and sure have put him in a nutral state...when he comes out on TV and is broadcast around the world saying to blow up Americans...yes, we have made him minimal in the big sceme.

Now, regarding social programs, you forget the simple economics lesson that if government spends $1, that necessarily takes $1 away from the rest of the economy. Have you ever considered that if Democrats have their way, they *will* (not might) bankrupt the rest of the economy for all these social programs?

Dear God...I seen the economy bankrupt under Clinton? God please help this individual. As a matter of fact there as a surplus.

I can go on about rich investing in hedge funds then lying about prices of companies and selling them short and so forth...but i'm not sure you will understand the concept behind it.

Dear God...save Perry from being such a dork.

joaquin, do you need to be taught how to quote properly?

First:

"Dear God...did Saddam become a player in the world again? I think not...I think there are hundreds of Iraqis killing the boys over there...stupid...don't you watch or read?"

Where did I say Saddam was behind the insurgency? I didn't. So stop putting words into my mouth, thanks, and read what I actually wrote.

"Dear God. When will you learn about all the cells he has out there. God...please help this individual know the importance of this man and sure have put him in a nutral state...when he comes out on TV and is broadcast around the world saying to blow up Americans...yes, we have made him minimal in the big sceme."

Nobody with half a brain believes that Osama is more than a figurehead now. Don't you read?

Good lord, liberals like you mock Bush for his regional pronunciation of "nukular," yet you can't even spell "neutral" nor write coherent sentences.

"Dear God...I seen the economy bankrupt under Clinton? God please help this individual. As a matter of fact there as a surplus."

Again, you're putting words into my mouth. I said no such thing. What part of "the prosperity under Clinton was only a bubble" do you not understand?

Also, there were only two years of a "budget surplus" under Clinton's watch, courtesy of Social Security revenues. Both parties (I don't refrain from criticizing Bush and Republicans too) use that to mask the size of the real deficit.

http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/intellectual-bankruptcy-of-left-part_25.html

"I can go on about rich investing in hedge funds then lying about prices of companies and selling them short and so forth...but i'm not sure you will understand the concept behind it."

There have been plenty of people prosecuted for investment fraud, because they lied about their companies' revenues. On the other hand, merely selling stock short is not criminal nor even unethical. I could explain that you're just talking out your ass, but would you understand *that*?

"Dear God...save Perry from being such a dork."

I sometimes wonder what God is doing, especially now that I see that he saved you from intelligence. You picked the wrong fight, boy.

Bad boy,
I believe that any society (not just yours) goes through cycles of high and low taxation, inflation and interest rates. If you could show me when high taxes have broken an economy I'd be interested to hear about it.
In the UK we have people who are nearly famous threatening to leave the UK if so-and-so (used to be labour) got into power, because of high taxation. They rarely ever do leave, and, like Sean Connery (tax exile in Marbella who 'supports' Scottish Nationalism from there), they're not missd that much.
My answer is then that 'generally' (your key get-out word), higher taxes happen. There are some Scandinavian countries where tax is breath-takingly high, and yet they have a society they feel is better (by the sort of measures which people judge these things by).
I'm very much agreeing with conservatives in the way that I feel you shouldn't get 'something for nothing'. If I pay taxes, and the schools are good, the roads well maintained, etc. that's what I'm paying for, so I'm not disatisfied.
Sorry this answer has been so long.
Perry, the only thing I have learned is that you love to cut and paste and ramble on. If your pension is less than if you'd hid the money in a shoebox, you've been screwed. Didn't the tech bubble burst well before the end of the Clinton administration? The other stuff you posted is just not relevant IMO
Redneck, what a boring and predictable turd you are; think about replacing 'radical' with 'reactionary'. I can't even be bothered to deny what you claim, but I notice you seem to say very little. Are you some spotty teenage troll? If not, try not acting like one "Hur Hur fuk u ur moms a ho, u suk". Sheesh.

bryan,

you wrote;
----------------
"My answer is then that 'generally' (your key get-out word), higher taxes happen. There are some Scandinavian countries where tax is breath-takingly high, and yet they have a society they feel is better (by the sort of measures which people judge these things by)."
------------------

bryan, my question was straightforward;
Do you believe higher taxes is better for the economy than lower taxes ?
I didn't ask if "higher taxes happen," or what people's feelings are about society.
It's not a question of satisfaction.

I asked if you believe it is better for the economy than lower taxes.

bryan, it's not my fault that you're an economic ignoramus. Economics is part philosophy, part history, and a lot of raw data. So if you can't deal with the statistics, then perhaps you should just say "Thanks for Lend-Lease" and go off quietly. I'm a detail-oriented person and don't shy from full discussion, especially when I debunk silly nonsense like what you've put forth.

The difference between you and me is that you make absurdly simplistic statements like "the US economy is not in great shape at the moment" and "It was in better shape under Clinton (gag)," then annoint yourself as providing facts. I, on the other hand, counter your *mere opinions* with facts, since I have the data, philosophy and history to stand on. I'm also linking to my own blog entries, if that's what you're deriding as "cut and paste," where I've talked more extensively about the topics at hand.

You reference Scandinavia and are probably referring to Norway. Norway can be the way it is because of its huge oil reserves, just like Saudi royals can treat their people like they do. Such societies have big governments only because of incredible wealth in the back yard, not because high taxes are somehow better inherently.

You talk about how you're satisfied with what government provides for you. That's all fine and dandy, but what about everyone else? What you're doing is using government as a potentially deadly weapon, forcing everyone else to pay for things they don't want. I don't want to pay for the crappy roads that government builds; my neighbors and I maintain our private road very well, and at a fraction of the cost. I don't want to pay for crappy public schools, or transit employees who stand around doing nothing.

I guess you're not aware of our recent history, which is all right since I couldn't even tell you the year Tony Blair became PM. Then again, another difference between you and me is that I don't try to speak of things I know nothing about. Apparently you're unaware that Bill Clinton was president through January 20, 2001, and that the tech bubble started bursting in early 2000. (I should know, I worked for a dotcom and found myself out of a job in January 2000.) If you consider seven years "well before" the end of eight, that's quite a stretch.

Now, there are numerous examples in world history where high tax rates suppressed economic growth. You seem to understand how taxes affect people's incentives: where to live, and how much to work. However, you cannot compare the UK to the United States, as the latter has a great many different state tax structures. People may not leave their home country, but they can move within the country to escape different tax structures. I know many people in my and Karol's age group who are considering leaving New York State because of the overall tax situation. California right now is bleeding jobs and people because its taxes are just too high.

The most disastrous example of tax hikes was when Herbert Hoover raised taxes after the Great Depression began. Yes, *Hoover*, and FDR did the very same afterward. It was FDR's massive tax increase in the mid 1930s that caused the Depression to worsen in the late 1930s, because employers simply didn't want to hire people.

http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/that-had-to-have-hurt.html

After Mike Bloomberg was first sworn in as NYC mayor, he began raising taxes to cover budget shortfalls. This drove people out of the city and reduced the tax base, and in the end it still didn't take care of the deficit. In the last couple of years, what's saved NYC's budget from tanking is Wall Street, which is currently funding about a third of the city courtesy of all the taxes.

The U.S. economic deterioration of the 1970s was not only a combination of the Fed's bad monetary policy and Nixon's wage-price controls, but the high tax rates too. People's pay must be increased periodically to keep up with "the cost of living." Well, in the 1970s the Fed disastrously created higher and higher inflation in an effort to combat high unemployment. People's paychecks necessarily had to increase to keep up with inflation, but tax brackets were not being sufficiently reindexed for inflation. So people kept paying continually higher tax rates for the same buying power, when in fact their paychecks often weren't keeping up with inflation. Americans are seeing that today with our Alternative Minimum Tax, which was similarly not reindexed for inflation and thus affects more people each year.

And what happened after Reagan took office? Well, he and his economic advisors convinced Volcker to stop futzing around with the money supply. But what had the greatest effect was that Reagan slashed taxes massively, and tax revenues *surged* as people could work and invest more without being penalized. The U.S. has had four supply-sider presidents, Reagan being the third.

http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/debunking-would-be-debunker-of-laffer.html

"The other stuff you posted is just not relevant IMO"

I ran that through my LimeySpeak Translator (tm), which said it means, "I can't refute what you said there."

You're digging deeper, bryan. Take care that I don't come down on you like a V2 rocket.

Ist question "Do you believe that higher taxes is GENERALLY better for the economy ?" (emphasis mine).
2nd question "Do you believe higher taxes is better for the economy than lower taxes ?"

These are different questions, and I'm just not sure I can give you a quick answer, or even a slow one, hence what I typed to the first one. If you can show me where higher taxation has broken an economy, please do. I think when I said I want to see stuff happening for my tax money was as close to an answer as you're gonna get. I'm really not trying to be awkward.

bryan,

When I asked you the question the first time, you characterized my insertion of the word "generally" (in your words) as "your key get-out word."

(By the way, I have no idea what a "key get-out word" is.)

Therefore, in order to accomodate you when I asked the question the second time, I removed the word "generally"---but it remains the same question.

Each time, I asked if you believe that higher taxes is better for the economy than lower taxes.
Not better for people's 'feelings,' rather, better for the e-c-o-n-o-m-y.

And after witnessing your inept attempts to handle Perry Eidelbus' lessons in Econ 101, I don't blame you for merely responding that "higher taxes happen," or to Perry, that "the other stuff you posted is just not relevant IMO."

bryan, you just don't know how to answer.

I think he means "get-out" as a word or phrase you can pivot on, or use later on to make an excuse. "Generally" or not, you have more than a fair question, and it's easily answerable. He won't even give a "yes" or "no" since either requires him to stick his neck out. I laid out a detailed history of what taxes do to economies, and he just can't refute it.

Ah, history repeats itself as the Germans (well I'm only one quarter and hardly look it) bomb away at the Brits.

Perry, you were spot on in your defining of a get out keyword.
Now, yes, you are probably far more knowledgeable about economics than I am, thats a fact I won't even try to dispute. Where I might take issue is with what you've inferred from what I actually have said; for example Perry, I did not say I was happy, I said if I could see that my taxes were being spent well, I WOULD be happy. Can you see the difference? (btw I have to shout the word cos my keyboard is too rubbish to underline). I also think a year of Tech bubble bursting is quite a long time, and, at the time Bush was elected, it was reported that the US economy was strong.
You have given a lot of US examples, but, and please be patient with me here, I can't see that either you or BB have answered my question asking for an example of where an economy has been broken by high taxation, i.e. the economy has collapsed, or similar. You mention Norway, and I ask, are you saying Norway taxes high because it has huge oil reserves? Saudis don't have income tax as far as I'm aware, and they have no democracy either.

Your own particular happiness (whether you are happy or *could* be) is not what I'm talking about. I will reiterate:

"That's all fine and dandy, but what about everyone else? What you're doing is using government as a potentially deadly weapon, forcing everyone else to pay for things they don't want. I don't want to pay for the crappy roads that government builds; my neighbors and I maintain our private road very well, and at a fraction of the cost. I don't want to pay for crappy public schools, or transit employees who stand around doing nothing."

Everyone who benefits from government can be quite happy, but what about those who pay more than they receive back? I pay a significant portion of my income to taxes, and I'm certainly not happy with what I get in return.

A lot happens in a year, but a year goes by quickly. And now that you clarify, I can tell you that by early 2000, the bubble was showing signs of bursting. Massive layoffs began in early 2000, and people had already been talking "recession" by the time Bush was elected in November 2000.

I didn't say Norway has high taxes because of its oil, I said that Norway can afford high taxes because of its oil. The difference is not a matter of semantics. And my point about the Saudis is the same, that their economy exists in its present state, i.e. royals living like they do, because of massive oil deposits:

"Norway can be the way it is because of its huge oil reserves, just like Saudi royals can treat their people like they do. Such societies have big governments only because of incredible wealth in the back yard, not because high taxes are somehow better inherently."

Because these countries have a much smaller population than that of the United States, and a very high concentration of easy wealth per capita, these countries can afford gigantic governments (measured as a percentage of GDP). The problem for them is, what happens when the wells dry up?

Now, if you had bothered to read through my examples and check my own blog posts, you'd have seen prime examples of how high tax rates stifled an economy, particularly Hoover's tax hikes after the Depression began, and FDR's tax hikes in the mid-1930s that plunged the U.S. back into the Depression. The tax hikes were supposed to pay for government employment programs and thereby increase employment. But all they did was tax money that otherwise would have created jobs, so in the end there were a lot of nice bridges and other public works, and an equal monetary amount in layoffs from the private sector. Government can create a job only by taking away from other jobs.

Perry, we are quite probably misinterpreting one another, and never, as was said shall the twain meet. I found out the other day for instance that in the USA, if you are fortunate enough to win some money, that is taxed. Not so in the UK, although the interest is taxed. I could think of a few replies to refute what you think I have said, or even what I think you have said, but it's not worth the bother for either of us, because we will neither sway one anothers' opinion, nor will we sway the opinion of anyone reading.

Well, bryan, keep spouting off bad economics, and I'll keep using my Bad Economics Defense Shield.

There's a simple explanation for lotteries in the UK versus the US. My mother regularly visits our family in London, and more than a few times she's raved about how "in Britain there's no tax if you win the lottery." This stems from a simple misconception about the nature of taxation. When government gives you a monetary prize, but takes back a portion in "taxes," it's not really a tax, because it wasn't your money in the first place. When it is your money, then the concept of a "tax" is valid. So if you won a prize on a game show and must pay a tax to the governent, that's a true tax.

Why do US lotteries talk about pre-tax winnings, then? Because they like to inflate the winning amounts (and thereby generate more interest) by talking about huge sums that do not really exist. You can get more sales if a lottery has a $100 million jackpot instead of $50 million. It's doubtful you'd get double the sales, but even if you don't get any increased sales at all, it costs nothing extra to advertise the lottery at the much higher amount.

That's quite sneaky! Here we have a lottery game called dream number, which you cannot pick your own numbers for, and which hardly ever gets won, and the proceeds get to fund another London based project (London gets loads of the lottery proceeds), although this is the Olympics so I don't mind; it's not like Liverpool or Birmingham would ever stand a chance at the games in the UK.