Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Is such a determination case by case regarding the particular subject matter and the patent claim? Or is it a ruling that genes are inherently not patentable, like business methods.

From the outline it looks like he found these patents bad, not all gene patents. Of course depending on his standard it could be effectively killing them all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

2. This choice - between further gutting demand and raising state and local taxes - is exactly why the dems included aid to state and local government inter stimulus, while Rs have been largely opposed to using the federal gov't's borrowing power to avoid these tax increases.

There wasn't nearly enough of this kind of aid, for the wrong reasons. If they do this, federal legislators take the political hit and state government gets the benefit, and this is an especially bad idea if you're worried about governors running for the Senate.

On net, the federal stimulus has only offset cuts in state and local government. If people think the Keynesian approach to the recession hasn't worked, they're confused -- it hasn't been tried yet. And by and large, state and local governments aren't raising taxes, they're cutting spending. So the worry about continually rising taxes choking the economy is a chimera.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I think Para 1 premise is more broadly agreed than just Laffer. It's para 2 that has not been borne out in practice at current tax rate levels.

Yeah, not borne out in practice. But if the pie can only shrink--as Sebby suggests--then Laffer's theory is bunk and the Repubs asserting that tax receipts grow when taxes are cut need to get with Sebby's program.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You could have made this a Twitter post without losing any content.

I had lots of #Sbux this AM. Makes me verbose. And overly-regular, IYKWIM. #HaveToDropTheKidsOffAtThePool

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There wasn't nearly enough of this kind of aid, for the wrong reasons. If they do this, federal legislators take the political hit and state government gets the benefit, and this is an especially bad idea if you're worried about governors running for the Senate.

On net, the federal stimulus has only offset cuts in state and local government. If people think the Keynesian approach to the recession hasn't worked, they're confused -- it hasn't been tried yet. And by and large, state and local governments aren't raising taxes, they're cutting spending. So the worry about continually rising taxes choking the economy is a chimera.

But you haven't seen Sebby's property tax bill--it's higher than last year, even tho his house is worth less. Mine will be, too, when the bill comes out 3 weeks after the election--about 10 weeks late.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Are we better off trading govt workers for private sector workers? I think we all agree the answer there is yes. One is a cost. The other grows the economy (and you get 1.5 - 2 private sector workers for the cost of one govt worker).

Now you're being inane. First, government workers don't make twice as much as their counterparts in the private sector, as we all know. If the average comp figures look like that, it's because government jobs tend to be white collar and in more highly paid lines of work.

Second, in ordinary times there's a fear that government spending will supplant private spending. In these times, people aren't spending their money, they're hoarding it. Hence the problem with aggregate demand. You need the government to pick up the slack, because there is slack. You have a host of unemployed workers out there who can't find jobs because there isn't demand. They were working not too long ago, so the problem (or most of it) isn't structural. It's that no one is hiring. This is a huge loss for the country, and if we don't do something about it it's going to be a bigger loss because no one will want to employ those people in a few years.

The question is, If we let govt workers go, would the decrease in spending there flood into creation of private sector jobs? I'm unsure of that, and see your criticism about making such a bet. But I'd nevertheless make the bet, for reasons explained in the last paragraph of this post.

That big increase in municipal and state taxes may seem insignificant to you and me. But I assure you, there are tons of lower middle class people going into Sheriff's sale of their homes right now over tax bills of $3-4k. I'm not shitting you. I used to collect taxes for a county in PA and still have online access to the tax rolls. There's a whole underclass of people who really live their lives to the penny. If the state jacks their taxes 1%, and the municipality and schools take them up another 5%, these people are fucked. And the more we hurt them to pay for the benefits and outrageous salaries of the average govt worker, the more we push ourselves toward a day of reckoning where those govt workers have to be laid off en masse, rather than slowly, methodically downsized in a process that avoids creating acute economic damage.

On your last point, the GOP, I think, is looking a couple steps ahead. Unless we get a transformative technology, we're looking at a decade plus of stagnancy. Giving the states stimulus to pay for a govt they can't afford for a couple more years allows them to put off until tomorrow a debate we needed to have years ago - "What do we want? A bigger private sector, or a bigger govt?" We can't have both in a long term economic environment teetering between anemic and negative growth.

We don't want a bigger government per se. We need the government to pick up the slack now, in extraordinary times. Doing so helps the economy recover.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

if some mouth breathing idiots start voting r, doesn't that mean the number of people that vote for one candidate but actually meant to vote for another might balance out next time?


p.s. as to insipid claims go read the lies Ty told you about the HC costs that you all bought into.

Does that mean that the Republican attacks on Democrats for cutting Medicaid were lies?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Yeah, not borne out in practice. But if the pie can only shrink--as Sebby suggests--then Laffer's theory is bunk and the Repubs asserting that tax receipts grow when taxes are cut need to get with Sebby's program.

It works in reverse. As the pie shrinks and tax rates remain constant, they operate like an increase. Hiking them is an increase atop an increase, strangling the source of revenue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Is this true, given the various tax increases under ObamaCare?

In his first few months in office, President Obama proposed and passed one of the largest tax cuts in American history -- $282 billion over two years -- without Republican support. It's amazing how this fact just went down the memory hole.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I had lots of #Sbux this AM. Makes me verbose. And overly-regular, IYKWIM. #HaveToDropTheKidsOffAtThePool

Be careful. If you drop off kids of that color at the pool in Philadelphia, you may set off an uproar.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I found the new contract with America very disappointing. It's filled with generic concepts and platitudes. Anyone that thinks the GOP is committed to meaningful change is kidding themselves. It's a real shame, because I think the timing was right for something like this.

For decades, the GOP has been about cutting taxes, mostly for the rich, and vague happy talk about spending cuts which never happen. They cannot and will not seriously cut spending, because they cannot and will not touch the military and Social Security. Their talk about fiscal discipline is completely opportunistic, a political tool to use to attack Democratic priorities. It's really very simple, and yet people keep falling for the act. Which is why they keep doing it.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It works in reverse. As the pie shrinks and tax rates remain constant, they operate like an increase. Hiking them is an increase atop an increase, strangling the source of revenue.

Sure, but that's a corollary to Laffer, not Laffer's theory, which was based on rates.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

But you haven't seen Sebby's property tax bill--it's higher than last year, even tho his house is worth less. Mine will be, too, when the bill comes out 3 weeks after the election--about 10 weeks late.

Move to California. You'll get screwed in the short run because you'll be subsidizing your neighbors who've been there a while, but you'll keep paying taxes on the purchase price of your house.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Now you're being inane. First, government workers don't make twice as much as their counterparts in the private sector, as we all know. If the average comp figures look like that, it's because government jobs tend to be white collar and in more highly paid lines of work.

Second, in ordinary times there's a fear that government spending will supplant private spending. In these times, people aren't spending their money, they're hoarding it. Hence the problem with aggregate demand. You need the government to pick up the slack, because there is slack. You have a host of unemployed workers out there who can't find jobs because there isn't demand. They were working not too long ago, so the problem (or most of it) isn't structural. It's that no one is hiring. This is a huge loss for the country, and if we don't do something about it it's going to be a bigger loss because no one will want to employ those people in a few years.



We don't want a bigger government per se. We need the government to pick up the slack now, in extraordinary times. Doing so helps the economy recover.

Bridge. To. Nowhere. That's your stimulus. No transformative technology, no private sector picking-up of that "slack" on the other side. All you've done is buy a year of the status quo, for a trillion dollars. I agree with the stimulus because, well, none of us knew what was on the other side of that spending. It seemed a wise bet, and it was. Doing it again? Stupid beyond comprehension. Now it's Schumpeter's turn.

It is structural, and if you don't understand why, I'm not surprised the only point you can offer here time and time again is an uncreative borrowed argument about aggregate demand.

That was yesterday's argument, and though I remind you time and time again that, yes, the stimulus was a good idea then but that given what we have learned from it, another like it is not a wise idea now, you still repeat the same blunt talking point. Here's a tip: When arguing about a new stimulus, discuss the conditions now and how it will achieve long term results unlike the one we had before. Arguing points debated in 2008 is wasted breath. Either tell me what it's a bridge to or concede it's just purchasing the status quo for a period of time at greatly enhanced risk of a monstrous collapse later. And if the best you can offer is, "It will buy us some time in which a new bubble can form or real growth can take hold," don't write back at all.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

For decades, the GOP has been about cutting taxes, mostly for the rich, and vague happy talk about spending cuts which never happen. They cannot and will not seriously cut spending, because they cannot and will not touch the military and Social Security. Their talk about fiscal discipline is completely opportunistic, a political tool to use to attack Democratic priorities. It's really very simple, and yet people keep falling for the act. Which is why they keep doing it.

Or Medicare. Because the federal government needs to keep out of Medicare.