My God, you are an idiot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Wall Street Journal announces new editorial standards: will now exercise restraint before criticizing, assume all self-serving statements are true.

I note one thing the WSJ would not have done prior to the Murdoch error: write this self-serving editorial.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wall Street Journal announces new editorial standards: will now exercise restraint before criticizing, assume all self-serving statements are true.

I note one thing the WSJ would not have done prior to the Murdoch error: write this self-serving editorial.

The WSJ editorial page jumped the shark way before Murdoch bought the paper.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The WSJ editorial page jumped the shark way before Murdoch bought the paper.

Well, that was always my view, good to hear it from you.

But isn't this a sort of double-somersault over a school of sharks kinda thing?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Well, that was always my view, good to hear it from you.

But isn't this a sort of double-somersault over a school of sharks kinda thing?

It happened when Gigot took over. Same thing happened at National Review once Buckley was gone.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wall Street Journal announces new editorial standards: will now exercise restraint before criticizing, assume all self-serving statements are true.

I note one thing the WSJ would not have done prior to the Murdoch error: write this self-serving editorial.

Thanks for the link. It connected me to this - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read .

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Thanks for the link. It connected me to this - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read .

Yea, read that this morning. Scary.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Thanks for the link. It connected me to this - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read .

Shoulda thrown in property taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes and national park user fees. Surely he coulda gotten a marginal rate over 100%.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Shoulda thrown in property taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes and national park user fees. Surely he coulda gotten a marginal rate over 100%.

Yes, easily. Do you think he worries about the bogeyman under his bed at night?

Originally Posted by Adder

Shoulda thrown in property taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes and national park user fees. Surely he coulda gotten a marginal rate over 100%.

Don't mock, Adder. The WSJ cartoon of Uncle Sam taking someone's pie is right. The fact that adding the maximum federal income tax rate to the highest state rate you can find makes a big number = no taxes can be raised on anyone in any bracket ever ever ever and Obama is bad. Please do try to keep up.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Yea, read that this morning. Scary.

Per the article -- "As Milton Friedman taught decades ago, the true burden on taxpayers today is government spending; government borrowing requires future interest payments out of future taxes."


Is that true? If so, Milton Friedman was full of shit. Everyone knows that government borrowing creates a tax burden for tomorrow, not today.

And, of course, a few years ago the GOP was gleefully explaining that it didn't matter, that burden was illusory because growth fueled by low tax rates would take care of it. (Where is Spanky these days, anyway?)

Fucking baby-boomers. As Thomas Friedman said in the NYTimes this weekend, never before in human history has one generation been so blessed by its parents with freedom and prosperity, and never before in human history has one generation so thoroughly fucked its children.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Yea, read that this morning. Scary.

Good thing it's nonsense.

Or, alternatively, for one example, I don't see how the numbers work out for the required 32% increase in all tax rates. My guess his that he's comparing apples to oranges -- using the CBO alternate base case, which assumes we keep all of the Bush/Obama tax cuts and do other stuff like the doc fix that blow up the budget -- for his deficit projections. The whole discussion now is how to deviate from that base case, which everyone except maybe McConnell agrees we should.

But even with his numbers, I'm not sure how a deficit of roughly 5% of GDP implies a need for 32% higher taxes.

I also don't know who the "some" are that argue that we can bear pre-Reagan tax rates. Exactly no one I know of is advocating for that. But Plenty of people have noted that Saint Reagan's early tax cuts didn't result in the massive Laffer effects that some projected, and, in fact, growth rates were higher after Saint Ronny raised taxes. Suggesting the author's asserted Econ 101 principle might not be universally right (as anyone teaching Econ 101 could tell you).

And I don't see how the example of California, a relatively high tax state, is meant to be informative for the country as a whole (although it's of more interest to Californians).

On to the politics, I don't know which "many democrats" these are that demand no changes in social security and Medicare. I know of many democrats who won't agree to changes in those programs without doing other things that would also help the deficits and share the burden, but I've only seen one party insist that no compromise could ever be reached.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Per the article -- "As Milton Friedman taught decades ago, the true burden on taxpayers today is government spending; government borrowing requires future interest payments out of future taxes."


Is that true? If so, Milton Friedman was full of shit. Everyone knows that government borrowing creates a tax burden for tomorrow, not today.

Huh? That's what he said.

Of course I think he is also assuming incorrectly that we will at some point have to pay off the debt entirely, which is not the case and will never happen. And would be very bad.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Fucking baby-boomers. As Thomas Friedman said in the NYTimes this weekend, never before in human history has one generation been so blessed by its parents with freedom and prosperity, and never before in human history has one generation so thoroughly fucked its children.

Ah, channelling 11 year-old Esquire stories.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Good thing it's nonsense.

Or, alternatively, for one example, I don't see how the numbers work out for the required 32% increase in all tax rates. My guess his that he's comparing apples to oranges -- using the CBO alternate base case, which assumes we keep all of the Bush/Obama tax cuts and do other stuff like the doc fix that blow up the budget -- for his deficit projections. The whole discussion now is how to deviate from that base case, which everyone except maybe McConnell agrees we should.

But even with his numbers, I'm not sure how a deficit of roughly 5% of GDP implies a need for 32% higher taxes.

I also don't know who the "some" are that argue that we can bear pre-Reagan tax rates. Exactly no one I know of is advocating for that. But Plenty of people have noted that Saint Reagan's early tax cuts didn't result in the massive Laffer effects that some projected, and, in fact, growth rates were higher after Saint Ronny raised taxes. Suggesting the author's asserted Econ 101 principle might not be universally right (as anyone teaching Econ 101 could tell you).

And I don't see how the example of California, a relatively high tax state, is meant to be informative for the country as a whole (although it's of more interest to Californians).

On to the politics, I don't know which "many democrats" these are that demand no changes in social security and Medicare. I know of many democrats who won't agree to changes in those programs without doing other things that would also help the deficits and share the burden, but I've only seen one party insist that no compromise could ever be reached.

There's not enough info in the piece to figure it out. But in CA, when the Bush tax cuts sunset, the highest bracket will be paying between 45-50% marginal rates, without factoring in increases for Obama care, raising of the various ceilings, etc. And I think we all agree that there will need further tax hikes to keep current entitlements. So while perhaps not 70%, the number will be rising significantly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

There's not enough info in the piece to figure it out. But in CA, when the Bush tax cuts sunset, the highest bracket will be paying between 45-50% marginal rates, without factoring in increases for Obama care, raising of the various ceilings, etc. And I think we all agree that there will need further tax hikes to keep current entitlements. So while perhaps not 70%, the number will be rising significantly.

How do you feel about the effective tax increase the Republicans are threatening the country with -- the additional cost of borrowing (public and private) that would come with default?