Perry’s Flat Tax and other "bold reform" ideas in context of the richer 1%
by Linda Beale
Perry’s Flat Tax and other “bold reform” ideas in context of the richer 1%
The hard right candidates of the GOP are competing to set forth plans that demonstrate their utter and complete loyalty to the right’s “make the rich richer and make businesses less accountable” economic program.
This program involves the tired and failed policies of Reaganomics, just magnified:
- more tax cuts for the wealthy (zero direct taxation of their primary source of income–making money off money, and –to the extent that the incidence of corporate taxes says that corporate taxation should be attributed to shareholders–reducing those taxes as well);
- elimination of earned benefits for the rest of us (assuring huge revenue shortfalls to the federal government and no dedicated funding of programs, along with dedicated axing of benefits through the ‘deficit/debt’ scare tactic);
- deregulation of everything to do with business or capital (gutting EPA, Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, and every other regulatory agency no matter the impact on the economy or on ordinary Americans, thus encouraging a return to speculative frenzy that allows socialization of losses/privatization of gains);
- privatization wherever possible (Perry’s plan for privatization of whatever Social Security remains after the afore-mentioned gutting; privatization of schools, firefighters, bridges, highways, etc.); and
- continued militarization.
Michael Kingsley noted that the “economic growth” rationalization of the various flat tax plans that shift the tax burden to the middle class while granting enormous tax cuts to the wealthy is merely “hope masquerading as theory.” See Kingsley et al,Flat Tax Proposals are Perpetual Fount of False Promises: View, Bloomberg.com (Oct. 24, 2011) (“This hope masquerading as a theory has dominated conservative economic thinking for three decades, despite all evidence to the contrary”).
Perry’s flat tax proposal is right on track with the right’s apparent goal of enriching the rich and shrinking Social Security and Medicare and other federal government’s programs for the well-being of its citizens. He offers the so-called “Flat Tax” as an option, part of his “cut, balance, and grow” economic ‘plan’. He says it’s a “bold reform.” Opel, Perry Calls His Flat Tax Proposal ‘Bold Reform’, New York Times (Oct. 25, 2011).
Perry’s plan involves devastating federal program cuts including cuts to Social Security and Medicare for current and future recipients, as well as a ‘cart before the horse’ constitutional amendment –a ‘balanced budget amendment’ that would, for example, prevent us from borrowing cheaply even if it were to pay for a temporary surge in costs for Veterans’ medical care due to the cohort of soldiers returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. The proposal entails an unfounded assumption that reducing federal spending from about 24% of GDP today to around 18% of GDP within a decade would be reasonable, given the lingering costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, expenditures to make up for the drain on our military, the ongoing costs of the financial crisis sparked by deregulation and the ‘too big to fail’ phenomenon, etc. Perry has argued against “arbitrary cuts” to defense spending while at the same time calling for enormous tax cuts for the wealthy.
Perry says his system is “fair, simple, and flat”. In fact, it is none of the above.
So perhaps it is time to discuss two questions about Perry’s tax plan: (1) just what is this “Flat Tax”? and (2) what would be the distributional, administrative, government and other impacts of this new system of taxation (option to choose between the current income tax and the ‘Flat Tax)?
Regarding the nature of the Flat Tax, it is probably helpful to point out what it is not, since most Americans do not understand how it would work.
- The “Flat Tax” is not flat, since it has two rates: it will have an exemption amount of some sort for the poorest taxpayers, just as our income tax provides a standard deduction and personal exemptions (and other provisions, like the Earned Income Tax Credit) to ensure that the poorest Americans do not have to pay the income tax.
- The “Flat Tax” does not eliminate all deductions: it will leave deductions for charitable contributions (highly favorable to the rich who are the ones that make the most such contributions) and mortgage interest (also favorable to the rich, who have the most expensive homes and get the full amount of the interest deduction even with a flat tax), and some health and child care expenditures.
- The Flat Tax is not just a “single rate” income tax since it is not tax on all types of income: it will be a tax on wages that are not saved (so for the majority of Americans, a payroll tax or a tax on consumption). The primary source of income for the rich –money earned by money–would not be counted.
- The Flat Tax is not a ‘postcard filing’ tax, Perry’s assertions aside (that “taxes will be cut on all income groups in America” and that taxes can be filed on a post-card size form). The rich will pay much less, some in the middle class may pay less but only after fiddling with both forms, and the rest will not likely pay less. The form still will require figuring out what counts as income and when it counts and what type of income it is for anybody in the middle class that might be in either one (lots of filler pages behind that “flat rate” times “taxable income” calculation).
Regarding the feasibility of the “Taxpayer Choice” system of income taxation and Flat Tax:
- The system would lower taxes for the rich (and some others), with no benefit for the poor and lower middle class, so neither simple nor distributionally fair.
- About 50% of American families pay no federal income tax anyway or pay less than the 20% rate of the “Flat Tax”. Those families would have no benefit from the Flat Tax so for half of Americans, no benefit from the option. But Perry –who says he is “dismayed at the injustice” of Americans who don’t pay any income tax (but do pay payroll and excise taxes) won’t achieve his goal of changing the fact that poorer Americans don’t pay the income tax. They don’t under our current system because we have designed the stnadard deduction, personal exemptions and earned income tax credit to provide a minimal standard of living. They won’t under Perry’s system because they can still file under the current system.
- The wealthy would pay substantially less under the Flat Tax, since their main source of income–income from capital–won’t be taxed at all. They’ll choose the Flat Tax for a substantial tax cut.
- Assuming that the system provides an annual choice for taxpayers, it creates a nightmare. There will be some in the upper middle class who will have to calculate their taxes both ways and choose the most beneficial. For some, there may be some tax benefit to the Flat Tax, but their taxes will be that much more complicated and their benefit will be minimal compared to the tax cut received by the wealthy.
- If it doesn’t permit an annual choice, taxpayers may inadvertently find themselves locked into the clearly wrong system for them–leading to distrust of government, and a sense of lack of fairness in a system that provides a trap for the unaware.
- The differential treatment of income depending on its character under the Flat Tax option (zero taxed income from capital and fully taxed income from wages) will be yet a further impetus to tax evasion and unfair taxation of workers compared to owners–i.e., it is both untenable and unfair. (This was the reason that the 1986 TRA under Reagan eliminated the category distinction.)
- Len Burman describes it as “political pandering at its worst.” Perry Offers Tax-Cut Choice, BusinessWeek (Oct. 26, 2011).
- The system will result in huge decreases in revenues.
- The upper middle class and wealthy will choose the most beneficial tax (zero taxation of capital income, still get the mortgage interest and charitable deductions which are the biggest tax subsidies against their taxable income)
- This will result in substantial decrease in tax revenues, leaving the government wither with huge deficits funded by further borrowing, or the necessity of making huge cuts in long-respected government programs like consumer protection, mine safety, worker safety, food safety, environmental protection and basic research funding for the humanities and sciences
- The revenue shortfalls will inevitably call for shrinking the parts of government that the right that passes the bill doesn’t like–i.e., New Deal social welfare programs, EPA, etc. It will make it well nigh impossible for the government to uphold its promise to pay for earned benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare.
- That impact is an intended result of the revenue shrinkage built into the Flat Tax plans.
- The choice of tax systems will require duplicate tax administration as well (adding costs).
- Advocates of Flat Taxes/ VATS/ FAIR Taxes (national sales taxes) claim that their plans will all be “simpler” because of the single rate. They disregard the facts
- All of the complexities of the income tax remain for both the income tax and the Flat Tax–what is income, what character is the income, when is it income, is an item deductible or not (charitable contributions can really be quid pro quos, etc.).
- Having an option means generating an entirely new set of forms, guidance, regulations that underpin the statute, audits, administrative determinations–essentially a new division of the IRS to cover the new option
- Couple that with the right’s antagonism to the IRS generally and one can expect an underfunded IRS that has trouble enforcing either the income tax or the Flat Tax.
- Underfunding of enforcement (exaggerated by the right’s demonization of government generally and the IRS specifically) will incentivize tax avoidance behavior–sophisticated, wealthy taxpayers will game the flat tax system in particular by recharacterizing ordinary expenditures as deductible savings or taxable compensation as excludible capital income.
- Federal revenues will likely decrease even further because of the enforcement problems.
- The compensatory benefit–the claim that the Flat Tax (and accompanying deregulation of financial institutions and major corporations through the repeal of Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley) will unleash pent up investment and create a burst of economic growth that creates jobs is simply unfounded in fact.
- We’ve tried this philosophy for four decades (since Reagan) and it hasn’t worked–it is not the wealthy elite who create jobs; it is the consumers, whose demand creates the potential for business expansion, that create jobs. See, e.g., James Livingston, It’s Consumer Spending, Stupid, New York Times (Oct. 26, 2011); Steven Strauss, Actually Tax Cuts Don’t Seem to Have Much Impact on Economic Growth, Huffington Post (Oct. 25, 2011) (noting that “ideology is a poor substitute for pragmatic approaches to complicated problems. In fact the evidence that tax rates influence economic growth in any way is equivocal at best. A myriad of other factors are involved. Simply reducing tax rates, and primarily for the wealthy, may hinder — rather than enhance our economic recovery”).
- And most of the countries held up as models for how wonderful the “flat tax” is in boosting their economy do not actually provide solid evidence for that. Many flat taxes are in fact flat INCOME taxes, not just wage or consumption taxes. Countries like Hong Kong, which had a flat tax and managed quite well for a while, benefited from the extraordinary circumstance of acting as the intermediary between communist China and the capitalist world–so that any tax would have raised sufficient revenues on the kinds of deals going through the city-state. (And, as my colleague Mike McIntyre just reminded me, Hong Kong also benefited from an early real estate bubble like the one that gave this country a spurt of growth that looked like it was connected to the Clinton and Bush tax cuts but was actually connected to rampant speculation with easy money.)
- There is no investment need in businesses that can’t be met currently by the vast resources of unspent cash held domestically (as well as offshore). Corporations are not cash strapped–they are hoarding cash because they don’t have customers for their products.
- The “Econ 101” Chicago School theory on which the idea of an economic boom from putting more money in the hands of the monied rests is incomplete and just plain wrong. It is based on unrealistic assumptions about human decisionmaking, “efficiency” and “welfare”. Under that theory of efficiency, the marginal utility of the dollar is essentially disregarded. Under that theory of welfare, if the rich gain all the benefits of the economy as they have for the last decade, that’s an aggregate increase in welfare so all is fine. Again, this type of economic analysis is just “hope [for booming economic growth] masquerading as theory.”
- The facts are different. Empirical studies show decisively that increasing inequality is extraordinarily harmful to economic growth. When the top 1% are better off and the 99% are suffering, the society suffers. See The Spirit Level, Wilkinson & Pickett, or the work of Saenz & Piketty on inequality. See also Benjamin Friedman’s book on the importance of broad-based economic growth to a sustainable economy.
- In fact, the shortfalls in government revenues will lead to cuts to social welfare programs and to government spending on everything from infrastructure to disease control and food safety. As to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Perry himself suggests raising the retirement age, changing age eligibility for Medicaid, and introducing an income factor in determinating eligibility for these earned benefits. These kinds of changes and governmental program cuts will have a ricocheting bad effect on the entire economy that is likely to throw the economy back into recession. Indirect impacts including firing of government workers will add to the detrimental impact on the vast majority of Americans in the middle and lower classes.
Perry’s system also gets rid of the Estate tax. All told, the right’s slogan here might as well be: Make the Rich Richer! (no matter who else is hurt).
Note that this is all happening in a context where the rich are getting much richer, and everybody else is barely hanging on. See, e.g., Pear, Top Earners Doubled Share of Nation’s Income, Study Finds, New York Times (Oct. 26, 2011). The article reports on the CBO’s Oct. 25 report that the top 1 percent more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades of the ascendancy of hard right economic ideas. Their income increased an astounding 275% between 1979 and 2007. Meanwhile, the bottom 20% had only an 18% gain in all those years–and in fact their share of the national income dropped from 7% to a measly 5%. This is because government policies that can counter the upwards redistribution of income from everybody to the rich have been weaker since Reagan–“the equalizing effect of federal taxes was smaller” as the progressive income tax has become less progressive in nature and more federal revenues have been raised by the regressive payroll tax. See also One Percenters’ Income Nearly Tripled in Last Three Decades: CBO, Huffington Post (Oct. 26, 2011) (noting that the US ranks alongside Uganda and Rwanda in terms of the gap between rich and poor, and adding that inequality at that level is “likely holding back the economic recovery”). The Perry and Cain plans would exacerbate this trend. If we are almost at plutocracy (rule of the wealthy) now, we will surely be there if any of the hard right tax plans are put into effect.
Perry’s system dramatically changes the corporate income tax to favor multinationals–20% rate, removal of various deductions, almost tax-free repatriation of foreign earnings, and a territorial tax system. Incredible breaks for the multinationals who are moving jobs offshore as fast as they can. The right’s slogan here might as well be: Give It Away to the Multinationals! (so they can move everything offshore).
Makes one think that Charles Pierce is correct when he says that these Flat Tax (Perry), FairTax (Cain) and VAT (Cain) plans are just an “unwieldy parade of hackneyed talking points (Kill the Estate Tax and Save the Family Farm!) and tired applause lines (The Job Creators Are Uncertain!).” See Ken Houghton’s link on Angry Bear, here. I only wish I were as certain about the chances of the right’s not being successful at enacting some form of flat/”fair”/VAT tax as Pierce is.
http://ataxingmatter.blogs.com/tax/
I wonder if the R’s insistence there be no increases in federal income tax comes more from political ideology than from their support for the upper 1 or 2%. I doubt that all or even most rich people think they gain nothing from the US government. They are certainly aware of the advantages conferred by the US tax system as compared to those of other countries. I doubt they see personal economic advantage from drowning significantly weakening the government that creates such a favorable economic situation for them.
But, Republicans in Congress adamantly refuse to vote for any increases in income taxes even as they demand budget deficits be drastically reduced. Common sense will tell us that the cost of everything, including running the federal government will increase over time. The result of never raising taxes is to destroy the government. Not “the government as it currently exists” but government. Period. It’s my experience from my years in SSA that the government doesn’t do anything it can’t pay for. Over time, keeping taxes exactly the same as they are now will result in a government so small it doesn’t do anything for anyone. This is not good for anyone–rich, middle or poor.
In addition, the upper 1% can certainly afford to pay more taxes. It’s silly to suggest that they will somehow flee the US if their taxes increase a few percent. After all, the US is the safest, most comfortable country on earth. So, I conclude that the Norquist bunch, the billionaire Libertarians, Randians and Bircher remnants are calling Congress’s shots to the detriment of the rest of us. An example of how their thinking goes regarding SS is this article by Hendrickson from the Washington Times.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/27/social-securitys-problems-past-present-and-future/
Well, you sure coulda fooled me. And, here I was thinking that SS actually keeps the domestic economy on a steady footing. “Moral hazard” indeed. I doubt it. NancyO
Mark Hendrickson, that is.
Nancy
it’s a little hard to keep up with these folks, given that they are insane and dishonest. It is to be hoped that their insanity is so manifest the voters will refuse to vote for them. The tragedy is that if they do, they will just end up with an Obama who says “can’t we all just get along” and insist the R’s take what they want… hell, take what they didn’t have the gall to ask for themselves.
Nancy,
“The result of never raising taxes is to destroy the government. Not “the government as it currently exists” but government. Period.”
There is a sale on Tin Foil hats at Walmart this weekend. You had better stock up!
“It’s my experience from my years in SSA that the government doesn’t do anything it can’t pay for.”
You have got to be kidding? Shaping CBO projections by setting boundaries to the analysis is a common tactic of our government, it always produces a rosy outlook on revenue and a rosy ooutlook on the cost, but it is never accurate. The Democratic politicians are well known for claiming something is paid for by claiming they will make changes 10 years down the road to pay for current expenditures. Of course, they will not write into the legislation a protection mechanism to ensure it happends they way they sell it to the public, but hey if sounds good then it is good…right?
“Over time, keeping taxes exactly the same as they are now will result in a government so small it doesn’t do anything for anyone.”
That is not true! The economy could grow and revenue would increase. The problem has been that as revenue increases so does the size and reach of government.
Governments mandate is not to do for anyone. Government is in place to protect rights and sovereignty. The left has shaped government into a Nanny State, and now can’t figure out how to keep it afloat. That’s the left’s problem not everyones else’s.
Darren–You will note that I worked in the Social Security Administration. I did not work in a favored agency such as the various components of the DOD, DOJ including the Bureau of Prisons, or the State Department. In Republican administrations from the Reagan administration on, SSA was repeatedly underfunded and understaffed. The result is appeals and claims backlogs going back at least 5 years and more in some cases.
The 2012 fiscal year’s budget cuts have already reduced operating hours for local offices, closed a number of small facilities and made it impossible to replace anticipated staffing reductions due to increases in staff retirements. Construction of a long-delayed data processing facility has stopped and will not resume without a specific Congressional appropriation for this purpose. That is, SSA is doing what it has the money to do, and nothing more.
Now, supply side economics of the type you advocate says that a reduction in taxes and/or government services will produce rapid economic growth in the domestic economy. Hasn’t happened in the past 30 years and never will. You decry the “nanny state.” Well, I’ve seen a lot of government activity over the years and I never saw anything that approached nanny-like hovering over pampered citizens you believe exists. Oh, and before you go, define “left” in American politics. You know, is it the left which holds that you have to pay for wars as you wage them, foster the general welfare, and encourage the pursuit of happiness however it may be expressed? Well, if so, don’t fret. Every bird needs two wings to fly. The American government, like a bird, won’t fly a foot without both wings–right and left. NancyO
Darren
Maybe it’s that the growth in the size of government has caused the growth in the economy.
Meanwhile why don’t you tell us how they do it in Galt’s Gulch, where I suppose there are no second raters who have to eat on the downside of the business cycle.
Nancy,
“supply side economics of the type you advocate says that a reduction in taxes and/or government services will produce rapid economic growth in the domestic economy.”
Supply Side economics isn’t just about taxes. Regulation and taxes need to work together.
“Hasn’t happened in the past 30 years and never will”
Yes it has, it happend during Reagan and Bush II. Just because it did not meet the false standard set by Leftist partisans means nothing.
“Well, I’ve seen a lot of government activity over the years and I never saw anything that approached nanny-like hovering over pampered citizens you believe exists.”
Valuation of the “collective good” over personal choice, precaution over risk, and the community over the individual are all attributes of the “Left” and supporters of the modern Democratic Party. These ideas are dangerous, and erode the soul of freedom. They go against the founding documents, and have proven to fail over and over throughout history.
The United States has vast social saftey nets that create an environment of moral hazard, and expand wider and wider, with constant complaint from the people that support them and the people that benefit from them with noe end in site….this is a mjor problem for this country….it the result is known.
“define “left” in American politics”
“Left” is a philosphy opposite of “Right” that beleives in the Ideology of Progressiveism, considering the definition of Progressivism to be reform of exisiting by government fiat.
Coberly,
“Maybe it’s that the growth in the size of government has caused the growth in the economy”
There is no question that government is necessary to shelter the conditions for a Free Market economy to grow and normailze, but the idea that government is the cause of growth is impossible in a Free Market system. Government does not have the mandate nor the capacity to create wealth. If the government controlled all resouces, goods and services it’s only means of support would be from other country’s thru debt and trade.
If it were debt…then there is a time limit placed upon it
If it were trade, then the imbalance would have to be from a decrease in the standard of living, free will and individualism.
I give up. NancyO
Darren
I am sure these ideas go together well for you.
well the interesting thing is that right now the GOP is all about shrinking the size of government and unsustainable debt. When the GOP has the White House and at least one chamber of Congress, not so much and for the very obvious reason:Who wants to be in charge of nothing? If nothing else there is no money in it. And that my friends is the real problem faced by the 99 per centers. They do not have the resources to buy the best politicians. Our current president is the classic example. he may have more empathy for the 99 per centers than any republican, but at the end of the day he knows who pays for his campaigns and he knows who will provide him with lucrative financial opportunities come January 2013. as to Linda’s as always excellent and spot on essay, all I can say is that I thought slavery ended when the north won the Civil War the Koch brothers and their ilk are determined to reinstate it–it was in the Constitution after all. At least they are not racist. Everyone of whatever skin color will work to support them in the style to which they are accustomed.
I am all for dismanteling the nanny state, starting with the corporate welfare queens. Why pamper the corporations the way we do here, can’t they make it on their own? They should not expect to get tax credits for hiring veterans,as was suggested I read somewhere, they should have to hire veterans and pay fees if they don’t. Why pay them to create jobs, there is no profit if they don’t employ people to work for them and produce the products to sell, it is in their own interest to create jobs.
Lets not forget, they can’t exist without the people to work for them and buy their products either.
Bringing the medical insurance complex and the military industrial complex in line with OEDC spending patterns would balance the US federal budget.
First cut the war profiteers to $250B a year in 2011 dollars.
The Koch’s et al must be aware of the old style of slavery that existed in Europe as late as the 18th century. Defeated soldiers and sailors were routinely enslaved and used on the galleys as were debtors and other criminals. Civilians of all ages conquered in war were also subject to slavery. There was a great deal of profit to be made in the slave trade and both Christian and Turkish leaders engaged in it freely.
In any event, the custom of enslaving only Africans transported here by European merchants seems to have existed mainly in the Caribbean and the European colonies in North America. For some reason, the Spanish and Portuguese custom of enslaving indigenous people never caught on in the English colonies. Anyhow, I think you’re on to something, Coberly! No time like the present to go back to the future. NancyO
Darren,
You mean the market for CDS’?
Total Federal Personnel
Bush II (2000) = 4,129,000
Bush II (2008) = 4,206,000
Increase = 1.83 percent or .22 percent per year
Obama (2008) = 4,206,000
Obama (2010) = 4,443,000
Increase = 5.33 percent or 1.78 percent per year
Lys,
The recovery won’t happend unitl Obama and the Democrats are out of power. As soon as the 2012 election is over the recovery will begin. Until then, everyone will have to be patient. The Marxist movement spooked corporate America, and unitl they are confident that agenda will not be seen thru, they are not going to budge.
Nancy
Actually, that was Terry and while I agree with him, he is only half right.
The soon to be winners of the Civil War have learned that white is as good as black, but they have also learned that it is cheaper to rent than to buy.
They will be like the dairy farmer who butchers all of his cows when the price of milk drops, and then has no cows when the price goes up.
Kingsley: “This hope masquerading as a theory”
That must be hope as in, “I hope they buy this stuff.”
Source, please.
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp
Hmm. Looks like most of the growth under Obama occurred with uniformed military personnel. I would certainly support reducing the number of uniformed military personnel, Darren. I assume that was the point you were making.
Joel,
You have to becareful with this data, because it does not expose the real problem. The real problem is the cost not the number. These numbers represent Federal employees, but does not include “Contractors,” or State and Local government, not that the executive branch would be responsible for state and local growth. Even though decisions made in Washington affect what happends on a State and Local level.
With the average Federal government employee making much more than their private sector counter part, if you include total costs of health care and pensions….it is a real problem…That’s the point!
Also, Local and state government have out paced the federal government, but if the federal government consistantly subsidizing states, then what is the difference? There is no question that there is a minimum number of people required to do the work of the federal government, but we have so many overlapping agencies, and redundant programs, all that have to be staffed, there is plenty of fat to be cut….and yes that includes the military.
Then why post the numbers, Darren? Just because they are incredibly deceptive?
“You have to becareful with this data . . “
I am, Darren. You were the one who carelessly quoted some numbers as though they actually meant anything. Then, when I called you on it, you suddenly discover the real problem is “not the number.”
“With the average Federal government employee making much more than their private sector counter part . . . “
Actually, no. Federal employees earn 22-24% less than private sector employees in comparable jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which conducts the most in-depth study of pay. The widely-cited figures inaccurately count future pension payments, which include employee annuity contributions, as wages. Please spare us the tiresome wingnut propaganda, Darren.
” . . . and yes that includes the military.”
Great! Let’s start with the military!
“The United States has vast social saftey [sic] nets that create an environment of moral hazard, and expand wider and wider, with constant complaint from the people that support them and the people that benefit from them with noe [sic] end in site….this is a mjor [sic] problem for this country….it [sic] the result is known.”
What on earth is this semi-literate prattle supposed to mean, Darren?
“considering the definition of Progressivism to be reform of exisiting by government fiat.”
More semi-literate baffelgab.
No, Darren. The actual defintion of Progressivism is: “The political orientation of those who favor progress toward better conditions in government and society.” You don’t get to make up your own definitions of English words, Darren. If you want to speak English like an adult, you have to use words the way grown-ups do. And, really, you should try and spell them like grown-ups do as well.
What do we need a recovery from? All was great when Obama became president and will be just as great again with the policies we had before, more deregulation and more tax cuts and everything will be hunky dory? We need to eliminate the unions, fire more government employees, reduce wages and benefits some more. The economy will take off like a rocket. Right?
Save your breath, Joel and Batmensch. It’s hopeless with Darren. He recites his lessons which begin and end with what he knows is true. Government bad. Deductive reasoning always gets you where you want to go. NancyO
After reading all of Darren’s posts I’m forced to believe that he can’t post anything but wingnut propaganda. I think it’s all he knows. Look at his claims about local and state governments. Real data shows that even before Federal stimulus money ran out those governments were firing people. Once the stimulus money ran out the rate of firings increased. I mean really, if he thinks that this country’s social safety net is “vast”, instead of indadequate for the situation we find ourselves in, it shows how tenuous his grip on facts is.
Nancy you need to look at the typical face in Barbados and Brazil to see that the Spanish and Portugese project of enslaving indigenous peoples was a massive failure. Columbus et al found out early that most native ‘Americans’ from Caribs to various mainland peoples north and south would rather die. So the Spanish, Portugese and later British occupiers went along amd eliminated them while replacing them with Africans. In this country we wouldn’t have had the Seminole Wars or the Cherokee Trail of Tears if Western Hemisphere folk went along. Not to deny there was Pre-Coulumbian-American slavery or equivalent, just that the indigenes didn’t take it well when the perps were named Pizarro or Smith
Jim,
Let us say, for Darren’s benefit, that if you were mining gold and you had to sift a ton of dirt to find an ounce of gold, the “waste” of time and effort would be “vast.”
Now, for some reason gold miners don’t actually think of it this way.
But if any of Darren’s “job creators” need to pay someone 20% of their profits to provide the infrastructure necessary for them to mine gold from the economy… that IS a vast “safety net,” and of course a complete waste.
Because God has told Darren that “governments don’t create wealth.” They just defend it from the greedy poor and the evil foreigners who would take it away from the “creators,” those “poor who are not needed as workers, customers, or soldiers at this time.
Because everyone knows that without the moral hazard of that vast safety net, the poor would just take a cut in pay and get back to work, or join the army. And be glad to do it, too. Because everyone knows the poor have no reason to expect anything else out of life.
Bruce–The Spaniards succeeded in obliterating many indigenous populations esp in the Carribean. About all that’s left of the Tainos in PR and the Caribes elsewhere is their names and in English, the words “barbecue” and “hurricane.” Even the Dominicans and Franciscans who came to the New World with the conquistadores were appalled by the outright slaughter and death by disease introduced by the soldiers of the Spanish Empire. You have to remember that the Inquisition was run in Europe by the Dominicans who introduced the use of torture and execution in their efforts to discover and defeat heresy among the faithful. Queasy these guys were not.
So, I’d agree that the attempt to enslave the Indians of the new world failed but would add that many refused to work, sat down, and starved themselves to death rather than endure slavery as practiced by the Spanish in the New World. Meanwhile, the religious wars of the Restoration and the wars against the Turkish empire in Europe could certainly have provided a good supply of slaves. But, the triangle trade gave Europeans a good reason to enslave Africans, transport them to the Carribbean and English colonies, pick up molasses and rum, and return with these profitable commodities to Europe. And, that’s why there is samba in Brazil, rumba in Cuba and jazz in the US. NancyO
Agree entirely.
Basically we should enroll the Taino and the Caribs posthumously as honorary New Hampshireites. Unfortunately for them the Spanish were all too willing to go along with the second half of “Live Free or Die”
Joel,
Your an Emotional mess…..probably because your glass house gets shattered consistanly! Ha!
Nancy,
You actually have to be correct….something your not very good at!
Jim,
“Real data shows that even before Federal stimulus money ran out those governments were firing people. Once the stimulus money ran out the rate of firings increased.”
You just proved the point! Try to keep up!
Joel,
“The United States has vast social safety nets that create an environment of moral hazard, and expand wider and wider, with constant complaint from the people that support them and the people that benefit from them with no end in site….this is a major problem for this country….the result is known.”
You feel better now?
“The political orientation of those who favor progress toward better conditions in government and society.”
Joel…..this statement means nothing. How do Progressives want to strive for better conditions in government and society? Maybe if you did a little research you would discover the idiocy of the statement? C’mon….you have to do better than that!
Joel,
I notice you got nothing!
“Then, when I called you on it, you suddenly discover the real problem is “not the number.”
If the number is larger the expense is larger…that is the point!
The one point you tried to reute:
“Actually, no. Federal employees earn 22-24% less than private sector employees in comparable jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which conducts the most in-depth study of pay”
What part of:
“if you include total costs of health care and pensions”
didn’t you understand?
Bat,
An increase in the number is an increase in the cost……..you couldn’t put two-and-two together?
Isn’t that a direct contradiction of your next reply? It’s either “two-and-two” or it’s “You have to be careful with the data”; you can’t have both.