The right book for varusFollow

Yes, the USA needs to raise taxes. D'uh.
Yes, the USA needs to weed out ineffectual or wasted public spending. D'uh.
LOOK AT THIS

Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007 
 	Total Net Worth 
Top 1 percent	Next 19	Bottom 80 percent 
1983	33.8%	47.5%	18.7% 
1989	37.4%	46.2%	16.5% 
1992	37.2%	46.6%	16.2% 
1995	38.5%	45.4%	16.1% 
1998	38.1%	45.3%	16.6% 
2001	33.4%	51.0%	15.6% 
2004	34.3%	50.3%	15.3% 
2007	34.6%	50.5%	15.0% 
  
 	Financial Wealth 
Top 1 percent	Next 19	Bottom 80 percent 
1983	42.9%	48.4%	8.7% 
1989	46.9%	46.5%	6.6% 
1992	45.6%	46.7%	7.7% 
1995	47.2%	45.9%	7.0% 
1998	47.3%	43.6%	9.1% 
2001	39.7%	51.5%	8.7% 
2004	42.2%	50.3%	7.5% 
2007	42.7%	50.3%	7.0%

The top fourth of your population HAS fat on the bone to spare some more to the rest of the country. They really, really do.

Oh whoops, I meant to address that, and forgot. National economies go through cycles of high and low revenue. Usually low revenue coincides with higher unemployment and a higher need for public spending, and high revenue coincides with higher employment and lower need for public spending. So governments MUST be able to identify the "good" years, and build surpluses, or balance their budgets, so that they can sanely go into deficit when it is necessary and prudent to do so. Saving for inevitable cyclical emergencies, so to speak.

It is disingenuous to point at public spending jumping to 25% of GDP under Obama in isolation. It is perfectly clear that this is a result of the US and global commercial banking industry going into meltdown and causing the Global Financial Crisis. Any Republican politician, any politician at all, who said that they would not have gone into the same levels of debt as Obama to bail out the banks, everyone's finances, and provide a huge stimulus in the face of a looming Depression, is either a liar or catastrophically ignorant. Every economist and politician agrees that the GFC was the biggest global economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Yes, your debt is so high you're fucked. No, NO ONE COULD HAVE PUT THE USA IN A BETTER POSITION THAN IT IS NOW. Letting the banks fail or letting the private sector cope alone with the GFC would have made things exponentially worse than they are now. So you are just going to have to suck it up and pay the deficit down in the long term with higher taxes. As one of the above tables shows, The top 25% of your population CAN AFFORD IT.

Again, you're talking about revenue. When you specifically you said you didn't want to talk about revenue...

Um... For the second time. I didn't say I didn't want to talk about revenue. I said that revenue and specific tax rates (like the top marginal rate) are not the same thing. Dismissing complaints about "higher taxes" because the top marginal rate is lower than it was in the past fails to address what people are talking about when they say "higher taxes".


They're talking about the total revenue the government takes as a percentage of GDP. So I absolutely do want to talk about revenue. Because that's the issue at hand here.

Ok. Good point. However, those are "natural" effects on spending and revenue though. Revenue drops because economic activity decreases during a recession. It doesn't drop because we lowered tax rates, right? Similarly, spending increases because more people are in need of existing social services. We don't increase the scope of those services, right?

But this recession is different than the last 2 or 3 because the Dems did increase the scope of social services. They passed legislation to create new benefits, and new programs, and new objectives. Thus, we had more than the usual revenue/spending gap we'd expect in a recession of this type. That in turn created greater deficits than normal. Which created greater debt accumulation, which lead to fears of rising taxes to pay for it, which in turn (according to us conservatives) has caused businesses to be hesitant to invest as strongly in the domestic market than they would normally.


As I've pointed out in past threads, there's a reason why the Democrats predicted summer of 2010 would be the "summer of recovery". It's because past recessionary trends followed a very predictable pattern, and that pattern said that we should have started to recover at that time. But we didn't. So. What changed? Like I said, we spent more money than in past recessions. We didn't just end out spending more to provide existing services to an increased number of people, but actually increased the number and type of services (and other stuff) that we were spending money on. That's what changed. That's why this recession isn't starting to recover after 2 years like we saw with the dotcom and 9/11 crashes, and the S&L crash.



I'm not though. Even in past recessions, spending didn't increase nearly that much. Surely you can acknowledge that we didn't just spend more money because more people were in need of existing services, but that we also expanded services and created new areas of spending? My statements are not in isolation. My statements are in full recognition that we spent more money on "new things" during this recession instead of just spending more on existing things as a natural consequence of the recession itself.




I disagree. Many conservatives and most GOP politicians opposed spending more than just the TARP. They did that precisely because they did not believe we needed to spend more than that money to address the immediate problems caused by the housing bubble collapse, and that to spend more money would hurt economic recovery.

Guess what? Looks like they were right!



Because of its worldwide effect? Sure. But that's not the same as every economist and politician agreeing that the Recovery Act the Dems rammed through congress and a half dozen other "stimulus related" bills and amendments to bills that they added on top of that.



False. Had the GOP been in control of Congress in 2008 and retained the presidency (and congress) in 2009, we would be in a vastly better position than we are right now. If you can't see this, it's a failure of your own ability to see beyond a very narrow set of ideological assumptions, and not because those possibilities don't exist.



Sure. But that's not what the GOP proposed. We wanted to do TARP. Bail out the banks. Maybe even do a small token stimulus via direct checks like Bush did (twice). Doesn't cost too much, doesn't hurt to much, and doesn't help too much either. But it does make people feel better, so there's something. What we opposed was the massive spending in the recovery act and other stimulus related spending that followed for the next year and a half.

We did not need to spend that money. We did not need to do anything more than stop the financial institutions from failing, provide them enough capital to recover, and then allow the economy to recover naturally as a result. The negatives in the economy were because of the financial failures. Fix the failures, and those negatives will turn around. You don't need to do anything else.

We're in this mess, not because of the GFC, but because of the Democrats reaction to the GFC. They used the fear at the time to pass spending that in many cases had absolutely nothing to do with economic recovery. The Democrats, for the first time in 40+ years had sufficiently high numbers to pass a whole laundry list of things their lobbyists wanted. And despite the fact that we were in a recession and could not afford these things, they decided to spend massive amounts of money on them anyway.

That's why were in this debt crisis. It had nothing to do with the initial financial problems. Had we just done TARP and stopped there, we'd be fully recovered right now, probably down below 6% unemployment, likely never have exceeded 8% unemployment (another prediction they made based on past recession patterns which didn't happen because of their own actions), and we'd all be looking back on it like it was no big deal. Instead, as I have said in the past, the Democrats ideologically hindered economic platform is leaving us at the bottom of a recessionary pit, looking up and wondering how to get out.



Not the issue. Tax rate changes didn't create the deficit. Too much spending did. Fix the spending and the rest will fix itself. Or do we once again refuse to listen to the conservatives despite that they seem to be right about 99% of the time about these things?

Three reasons for that. You used to have a LOT of oil per capita. You are prepared to sell a LOT of military equipment overseas, and have been prepared to help pull down democratically elected governments and otherwise foment overseas wars you aren't directly engaged in in order to sell more arms and otherwise further large US corporate interests. Finally, economic effects DO NOT ALL APPEAR WITHIN FOUR YEARS TIME. In fact economic effects can take 20, 25, 50, 100 years to play out after their causes started. You used to be the SOCIAL world leader. And your SOCIAL aspects had many ECONOMIC effects. Back in the 17 and 18 hundreds, you broke the old class system. The rest of the world was only giving out education, the right to own land, the right to move freely and many other rights to a select few pre-selected High-Class people born into their position. The US smashed that system to pieces and out of moral considerations freed up its citizens. Any male could settle land, mine for resources. The entire population being freed up to do as they wished within their own resources was an economic tsunami that just flowed and flowed and flowed, while Eurasia was still mired in class bondage, and Africa in colonial bondage.

And then somewhere in the latter half of the 20th century you lost your social edge on the rest of the world. You were so used to being the world social leader in the past, and the present economic superpower, that you stopped advancing socially, because you seemed to assume that either you were perfect, or that you were better than every other nation. But in the mean-time other nations overtook you in moral progression and social progression and it's having effects. Other nations are growing (apart from the GFC blip) while you are stagnating. You are satisfied with: Do as you wish within your own resources. Other nations have progressed to: Do as you wish with your own resources and a common pool you get a share out of. It may sound *SHUDDER* like socialism, but it REALLY helps the free market as a semi-detached system.

Trust me, people from undeveloped nations are still begging to get into the USA, but Europeans, Canadians, the developed SE Asians, and the oil rich Middle Easterners have not coveted US citizenship for at least a couple of decades. THE US is a nation that is polarised politically so badly (while the main parties have few differences) that a goodly portion of your social progressives want OUT. The USA has beautiful individuals, beautiful geography, beautiful and terrible history, but much of its private and public processes, and many of its social groupings are becoming ugly by external and internal standards.

Reminds me of this:



What exactly would you call civilization with little or no taxes?

Nothing; once you add enough beer.

Freedom?

Oh, I'm sorry, did you mean that to be rhetorical?

Nu Uh. Badly targeted social spending doesn't work. Well targeted social spending works.

Teen birth and abortion rates, per 1000 women 15–19

Country 	birth 	abortn 	combned pct aborted 
Netherlands 	7.7 	3.9 	11.6 	33.6 
Spain 	        7.5 	4.9 	12.4 	39.5 
Italy 	        6.6 	6.7 	13.3 	50.4 
Greece 	        12.2 	1.3 	13.5 	9.6 
Belgium 	9.9 	5.2 	15.1 	34.4 
Germany 	13.0 	5.3 	18.3 	28.9 
Finland 	9.8 	9.6 	19.4 	49.5 
France 	        9.4 	13.2 	22.6 	58.4 
Denmark 	8.2 	15.4 	23.6 	65.3 
Sweden 	        7.7 	17.7 	25.4 	69.7 
Norway 	        13.6 	18.3 	31.9 	57.4 
Czech Republic 	20.1 	12.4 	32.5 	38.2 
Iceland 	21.5 	20.6 	42.1 	48.9 
Slovakia 	30.5 	13.1 	43.6 	30 
Australia 	20.1 	23.9 	44 	54.3 
Canada 	        22.3 	22.1 	44.4 	49.8 
Israel 	        32.0 	14.3 	46.3 	30.9 
United Kingdom 	29.6 	21.3 	50.9 	41.8 
New Zealand 	33.4 	22.5 	55.9 	40.3 
Hungary 	29.9 	30.2 	60.1 	50.2 
United States 	55.6 	30.2 	85.8 	35.2

The higher the social spending on education, social safety nets and public healthcare, the lower the teen birth rate, and the lower the crime rate 20 years later. European Crime rate? Lower than the USA.

Europeans nations have been high taxing, high spending for DECADES. They still have to fiddle, and they still aren't nirvanas, but they are VERY nice places to live. They are world leaders in the next generation of technologies, and Australia and America are stuck while present corporate interests convince governments to hold desperately onto 20th century tech, processes and standards. The European Turtle is coming up on the American Hare. You had a three hundred year head start. You've slowly squandered it by siding with existing business giants against newcomers. You glorify the wealthy as if wealth is a reliable indicator of moral merit, when that is no longer the case.

Poverty? Population living below national poverty line (%)

Country 	UNDP 	CIA[6] 	Year 	  
 Austria 	N/A 	06 	2008 	  
 Belgium 	N/A     15.2 	2007 est.  
 Canada 	N/A 	09.4 	2008  
 Denmark 	N/A 	12.1 	2007  
 France 	N/A 	06.2 	2004 	 
 Germany 	N/A 	11 	2001 est. 	 
 Greece 	N/A 	20 	2009 est. 	 
 Ireland 	N/A 	05.5 	2009 est. 	 
 Mexico 	17.6 	18.2 	2008[18] 	 
 Netherlands 	N/A 	10.5 	2005 	 
 Norway 	N/A 	N/A 	N/A 	 
 Portugal 	N/A 	18 	2006 	 
 Spain 	        N/A 	19.8 	2005 	N/A 	 
 Switzerland 	N/A 	07.4 	2009  
 United Kingdom N/A 	14 	2006  
 United States 	N/A 	12 	2004 

Half of Europe is doing better than the USA. Oo, oo, somebody cross reference this with the tax table!

This is FUN!

Table 7: Income equality in selected countries 
Overall Rank	Gini Coefficient 
1.  Sweden 	23.0 
2.  Norway 	25.0 
8.  Austria 	26.0 
10.  Germany 	27.0 
17.  Denmark 	29.0 
25.  Australia 	30.5 
34.  Italy 	32.0 
35.  Canada 	32.1 
37.  France 	32.7 
42.  Switzland 	33.7 
43.  U. K. 	34.0 
45.  Egypt 	34.4 
56.  India 	36.8 
61.  Japan 	38.1 
68.  Israel 	39.2 
81.  China 	41.5 
82.  Russia 	42.3 
90.  Iran 	44.5 
93.  U. S. A.	45.0 
107.  Mexico 	48.2 
125.  Brazil 	56.7 
133.  S Africa 	65.0 
 
Note: These figures reflect family/household income, not individual income. 
Source: Central Intelligence Agency (2010). 

Edited, Aug 15th 2011 10:36pm by Aripyanfar

If we are talking about freedom within a system that uses money, then I would agree with both.

Freedom, essentially, is your ability to command your own destiny. Money is intrinsically tied to that in our world.

No, you just leave them homeless, on the streets, in queue day-by-day charity shelters, from where getting a job is a miracle. Bravo. No miles of council housing here. Well done.

Australia did the rows of public housing towers mistake. It was a mistake. New public housing is broken up into architect designed, varied sized plots scattered individually. The old towers are being done up and several sold off as yuppie apartments. That breaks up the concentration of public housing in that area, and they are desirable since they are in prime locations to transport and shops.

It's true there are a buttload of hard-working, successful Americans. I'd guess the super-majority are hard working, and the super-majority keep to their own moral highground. It's the gap between rich and poor where you're slipping. Your super-rich out-rich everyone else compared to your national peers. Your super poor are suffering worse than your national peers. The former is only a concern because the latter exists. It's the latter that's a moral letdown.
Try this on for size: in countries with rationalised, universal safety nets and single payer option helathcare, people are more honest because they know that other people ARE looking out for them when they need it. They are more inclined to pay the taxes they legally owe, because they feel more benefitted in return. Because more are paying their allotted taxes, tax rates don't have to be as high to cover spending, unlike in Greece, where dodging tax is a national passtime. And people work harder because in order to get more Net income, they have to make twice the pay rise to get the same personal Net take-home wages than in the USA. I reckon this guess at net national motives is as good as yours.