It Is Estimated That China Executes Over 10,000 A Year
Republican Leaders Draw A Line In The Sand
Both Boehner and McConnell have declined invitations to a state dinner by President Obama to honor the Chinese leader Hu. Obama is like a giddy schoolgirl getting ready for a date with the high school quarterback as he bends over to make the Hu feel special. Now Obama must feel smitten, since the White House had advised Congressional leaders that they were expected to attend the state dinner for Hu.
Nancy Pelosi, D. CA, has been a critic of China’s human rights record, but is anxious to be in the spotlight with a world leader and our gift from G-d. She will surely take the opportunity to quiz the Chinese dictator on China’s human rights’ violations with her inane sense of intellect and wit or perhaps Obama has wisely told her to keep her pie hole shut.
Shakespeare understood the addiction of the Progressive Socialists, and described the problem over 400 years ago.
Henry IV, Shakespeare:
I can get no remedy from this consumption of the purse; borrowing only lingers and lingers it out, but the disease is incurable.
This is only the third state dinner of Obama’s Administration and with his attention to extravagance and to show the dictator how we Americans can waste public funds, the dinner will probably be epic for a country that is mired in a recession and near bankruptcy. Every attempt will be made to show the man who wants, (has already decided) to dump the dollar as the international currency standard, that he is absolutely correct in his assessment of America’s financial leadership and wisdom, especially with the current administration.
For Boehner and McConnell to decline their invitation may seem like a lack of manners and etiquette to many; however, Harry Reid, who referred to the dictator as a dictator, is predisposed in Nevada and will meet with the Chinese dictator with Boehner and McConnell on Thursday as well.
Boehner, when quizzed about missing the state dinner, replied with diplomatic aplomb:
“Without accepting most of that question, the president of China is coming to the Hill on Thursday. We’re going to meet with him in a bipartisan fashion and I look forward to seeing him in the future.”
A rare show of diplomacy is appreciated in Washington these days; however, the question is remains in the shadows, like an assassin with a knife, how much of a friend is this country we call China. Can we trust them? or is their intention to destroy us economically and militarily. With a leader like President Obama, they know they can seize the advantage and manipulate his obeisance and hero worship of Communist leaders and dictators as if he were a gullible child.
(View all pictures of Chinese execution: Warning Graphic)
There’s that “necessitated increased borrowing” phrase, blaming it on tax cuts instead of the real culprit, not reducing spending, again.
That the government continually chooses to put a tax policy adjustment on credit cards is the problem, Larry. The tax policy adjustment is not the problem.
Trends… trends… trends. And look at those trends in the context of the economic conditions of each era.
The 2006 study provided charts for revenue related to tax bills only, and did not include the phased in long term effects of those bills. Yet there was a marked trend of an increase in federal revenues under Reagan, and you chose only to see that anything that was a cut resulted in less revenue collected, and anything that was an increase resulted in more revenue collected.
Well duh… no brainer. If I rob your safe where you keep cash, you have a million in there, and I take half a million, I’m certainly not making as much as if I take it all, am I?
As I pointed out to you in a subsequent comment, if we are playing your debate rules, where money not stolen is “lost revenue”, then we can look at the Reagan tax policies cumulative as a loss of $76 billion over his two terms. (This was using the figures provided in that 2006 study on pages 16). Evaluating the numbers for Clinton ‘s terms showed he lost $45 billion…. all this using your measuring stick. Ain’t that inconvenient? And considering that’s figures not accommodating for a deflated dollar, it becomes worse for your 1990s hero.
Federal revenues are only applicable to the deficit and debt… a ratio that fluctuates and changes when compared to spending. The revenues have always fluctuated up and done. The spending, however, continues to rise and they pay no heed to the revenues except to figure out how to convince us we want to give them more and still keep their cushy jobs… all so they can (unwisely) spend more.
Therein lies our problem… the spending. Yet this has nothing to do with how tax policies affect the economic growth of the nation.
@As I pointed out above, The GDP growth % under Reagan and his policies is far superior to Clinton and his policies. Obama has chosen to ignore his debt commission’s recommendations to return to something closer to Reagan’s approach… lower income taxes and less tax credits and business breaks. Instead, he’s getting up on the dais, pointing his nose in the air while he once again tries to sell spending… but this time avoiding “spending” and “stimulus” terms, but using “investments” instead.
We’ll see if the nation, and the newly elected Congress is dumb enough to buy into that one.
This is a bizarre statement that I wanted to address spending. Keynesian economics is is a theory of total spending in the economy (aka aggregate demand) and its effects on output, employment and inflation. Both monetary and fiscal policies, and spending, do have an effect on output (sometimes positively and negatively), and for any Keynesian theory to work, it depends upon prices and consumption to be rigid in nature.
Therefore, I don’t consider your particular beliefs to be Keynesian since I don’t see anything in your commentary that assumes prices remain rigid as a result of policy…. except, perhaps some in your analysis of O’healthcare and premium prices. But that’s another story.
Nor does the Keynesian theory focus on deficit and debt, but on inflation and short run employment results… i.e. his famous statement, “In the long run, we are all dead.”
Where you may be demonstrating Keynesian traits is the more commonly associated advocation of aggressive government action to stabilize the economy. This is assuming the government is capable of improving on the free market.
There is nothing Keynesian about you to suggest that continually raising taxes to support a government’s nasty habit of spending more than anticpated revenues is a solution.
We all agree that there is a direct relationship between tax policies (increases or decreases) and deficit debt. Again, a no brainer. If you make less income, you have less to spend, and you must rein in your expenses to accommodate. American households deal with this reality every day since we don’t have money presses in our basements. Unlike the government, we can’t fall back on robbing the next door neighbor, printing cash, or borrowing from abroad to mask our declining income which will not cover our increasing expenditures.
But you always give the most important equation of that triangle – the spending – a pass. You whine about the debt, insist upon increasing the taxes, and allow the spending to go on, unfettered.
That’s not Keynesian. That’s just plain foolhardy.
@mata:
When did I ever advocate “continually raising taxes?” I advocate having taxes be in balance with spending. You actually succeed in cutting spending? Fine; reward yourself with a tax cut. But don’t cut taxes first and then borrow money to pay for the tax cuts. It’s conservative to pay for tax cuts with spending cuts. It’s anything but conservative to pay for tax cuts with borrowed money.
Keynesian economics is the government taking actions to increase the money supply. You do this in three ways: (1) Fed prints more money; (2) government borrows money to finance increase spending, (3) government borrows money to finance tax cuts.
You say that tax cuts pay for themselves, in that they generate increased GDP which, in turn, generates more taxes. This was a very fine theory, back in 1980. There’s nothing wrong with believing in a rational theory. Global warming from human-generated atmospheric carbon is a rational theory.
But, at a certain point, a theory has to be tested. The theory that tax cuts pay for themselves has been tested and has been utterly discredited.
Why don’t you find me a contemporary (as in post 2007) economist who provides a cogent defense for the theory that tax cuts pay for themselves. I don’t want your arm chair analysis of raw data. You’ve been wrong on that, virutally every time you’ve tried to do it.
You’ve asserted that the “trend” for revenue was steeper for Reagan than for Clinton. You were wrong. You said that you 2006 study showed that Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue, rather than cutting revenue. You were wrong.
Look at this:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/2/
And NO, the “GDP growth %” was not far superior under Reagan’s policies than under Clinton’s:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/8/
People who are used to evaluating graphs like this should be able to see that there was an upward slope to the revenue trend line which flattened substantially, following Reagan’s signature tax cuts. You can see that the trend line steepened after Clinton’s tax increases.
But this is just armchair analysis by me, an amateur, and you, an amateur. Why don’t you find a contemporary academic, or think tank guru, or Fed economist who has analyzed the data and who makes the case that tax cuts pay for themselves. I’ve already cited 10 conservative economists who assert the opposite: that tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves and, therefore, necessitate increased borrowing from China in order to make up the shortfall.
The reason that I am a CONSERVATIVE, economically-speaking, is that I believe in a (reasonably) balanced budget. I believe in paying my own bills. I believe the the USA is a stronger country when we don’t borrow money from foreign nations. For 30 years, the other discredited economic policy we’ve been following is “starve the beast.” This has never worked. Not once. Just as tax cuts have never worked, with regard to paying for themselves.
It takes no political courage to give voters a tax cut and pay for it by borrowing money from China. But it’s an economically bankrupt policy and it’s a morally bankrupt policy.
With respect to Aye’s exposition regarding deficits versus surplus, what’s important isn’t “gross debt;” it’s the ratio of gross debt to GDP. This exploded under the policies of Reagan and Bush; this came down during the higher tax policies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton.
What matters is the growth of the debt, relative to the growth of the economy. When the economy is growing faster than the debt, there’s no problem at all. A great many American corporations carry a lot of debt. As long as their business is growing faster than their debt, there is no problem. When the debt grows faster than the business; it’s a huge problem. Same for individuals. Same for the government.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Higher tax policies of Kennedy?
@antics: Kennedy cut marginal tax rates from 91% to 70%. GOP calls Kennedy a tax cutter. Obama (and Greenspan) want to raise marginal rate back to where they were under Clinton (all the way from 35% to 39%) and he’s a socialist.
There’s a Goldilocks zone with taxes, as with everything else. Even you must concede that the government does need some taxes, to pay the military, for example. It’s just a matter of balancing taxing with spending. Spend less and cut taxes. That’s conservative. Cut taxes without cutting spending. That’s irresponsible.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
In every comment INRE the deficit, you advocate raising taxes, Larry. You never demand a cut in spending. Even now, you demand increasing taxes first, then cut taxes (presumably back down to where they were before you raised them?) as a “reward” IF the government doesn’t increase it’s spending.
Has the government ever decreased it’s spending in our recent history, Larry? Cart before the horse. As long as they have the taxpayer ATM, and printing presses at their disposal, they will not cut spending. They need to be forced into that behavior, and it’s long overdue.
Number 3 is incorrect, and only serves to demonstrate your flawed approach once again. Our government borrows money to finance spending. Not stealing additional taxpayer cash is NOT spending. You cannot equate the two, save with your notion that all a taxpayers earnings is fair game for government to take at will. And Keynesian economics is not just about monetary policy, but fiscal policies. You left out a large equation of the theory.
Please point out any single comment where I have said “tax cuts pay for themselves”. Those words have never been uttered from my keyboard, so I can save you some valuable time. I do agree that adjustments in tax policies need to be accompanied by spending cuts. “Borrowing” is not the fault of taxpayers. It is the fault of a government who refuses to stop spending.
Nor did I state that “tax cuts” generate increased GDP. What I said was tax POLICY, which incorporates tweaking and fine tuning of a wide range of tax policies (and includes lowering the income rates in Reagan’s case), will stimulate the economic growth of the company. The GDP history reflects that.
Then I have to wonder why you tout Obama’s handling of the economy as wonderful. The debt via stimulus, piled on by the growth of federal government/agencies vastly outpaces an economy that faces double dip ramifications. Corporations that enjoyed stimulus money benefits now see that gravy train ending, and the layoffs again begin… of which Hanford, WA serves as a prime example.
No arguments with you there. My argument is your repeated suggestion solution of higher tax rates, which does anything BUT grow business and economic productivity. Lower rates stimulate the economy, and need to be implemented in tandem with spending reductions. But then, Obama’s not headed that way, is he? Tomorrow will bring talk of more spending, disguised as “investments”.
I might say, that the way they have done has already doom their party for the economy to rise in jobs because the busnesses have lost faith in their GOVERNMENT, and this is not going to get better,
no matter what they do from now on, next year will there be hope ? that the people will decide to play a role in electing the ones who are busyness frendly.
@Mata: It’s not true that I haven’t advocated cutting spending. For example, I endorsed the recommendations of the Debt Commission, which were about 2/3 spending cuts and 1/3 tax increases. I’ve given my “formula” for cutting Social Security: Increase retirement age to 70; eliminate cap on maximum contribution per year; means test beneficiaries. My “formula” for reducing Medicare spending is to pay for outcomes, as opposed to paying for billable hours and the like (n.b. there’s $10B in ObamaCare to explore ways to do just that). I’d also scale back military spending, along the lines suggested by the deficit commission.
When the government has ongoing expenses, and you cut taxes without reducing the expenses, you are borrowing money to increase the money supply, which is every bit as much of a Keynesian stimulus as borrowing money to pay unemployment benefits or to keep state workers from being laid off. Or the Fed printing money for “quantitative easing.” These are all borrowing (or creating) money to increase the money supply. No different, despite semantics about “stealing.”
Where do you get this “stealing” business? We live in a Constitutional democracy. Government spending follows the rule of law. It is not “stealing.” We all earn a living in a society in which government provides the environment which allows us to succeed. Rich people owe more to government than poor people. But, even if we don’t like everything which the government spends money on, the government has a legal right to tax us and we have a legal responsibility to pay. No “theft” involved.
You don’t like welfare. I don’t like war. All of us have things which we don’t like but which we have a legal responsibility to support with our taxes.
I don’t think that Obama’s economic stewardship has been “wonderful.” I do think that the country was in a major crisis. While I didn’t agree with TARP, at the time, in retrospect, I believe that it was the right thing to do and I give Paulson and Bush most of the credit for having the political guts to do what needed to be done. Obama and Geithner continued this policy to its conclusion, which I also now believe was the right thing to do.
With respect to “stimulus,” I still believe as I did at the time that the best policy would have been no “stimulus” at all, beyond, perhaps, a moderate extension of unemployment benefits, along with a more robust infrastructure program. But, as I keep pointing out, we are not talking about $760B vs Zero; we are talking about $760B (Obama, including about 1/3 of this in tax cuts) vs $500B (GOP), where the GOP was mostly tax cuts, which are the least effective form of stimulus. So, yes, Obama increased the debt more than the GOP would have (by $260B). This is not trivial, but it’s not the difference between responsible conservatism, on one hand, and socialism, on the other hand, that has been portrayed so loudly.
I don’t think that you can judge a Presidency until the passage of time. I supported Obama because my two main issues, at the Presidential level, are avoidance of nuclear weapons explosion in my geographic area and health care. I think his policies have met my expectations, in these areas. Beyond that, my third issue is control of our debt load, and the jury is still out. I do think that the number one priority is to get tax policy in line with reality. I was very disappointed when the Bush tax cuts were extended. I’d have allowed all of them to sunset, not simply tax cuts for the upper echelon, but tax cuts for everyone. They were a bad idea when enacted and continuing them is a bad idea now. But neither do I think that the Dems are uniformly wonderful. In this past election, I voted GOP for both House (Rohrabacher) and Senate (Fiorina). So far, I’m pleased with the prospects for improvements over the next couple of years, under our newly revised government. We needed the Dem majorities for health care, but, now that that’s passed, we are far better off having Boehner in charge of setting the House agenda, then we’d have been with Pelosi.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Aye, #150:
I’ll concede the point to you on this one.
I should have studied the chart more carefully before referencing it. It apparently dates from 2009 and is based on a NYT article and CBO estimates that are out of date.
Additionally, the time covered by the chart runs only through 2012. The CBO’s more recent projections of the deficit costs of the ARRA stimulus bill total $787 billion through 2019. The chart leaves out 7 years of projected ARRA-related costs.
@Larry: You said:
So if Granny gets treated for cancer, but dies does Medicare get out of paying for it? Or do they get a bonus if Granny lives?
You also said:
Really? So where in the Constitution is the authorization for any of the Government social programs? And more to the point, I believe what Mata is saying is that the Government is not entitled to all of the private property of the private sector.
To that end, let me ask you this: If you bust your behind in 2011 and for whatever reason (write a best seller, start a business, etc…) you earn $10 million dollars in income. How much of that should the Government get? Give us a number, a percentage and then explain.
For example, should the Government get 65% of your income, just because you are rich and according to your own words, you need to pay more.
Which brings me to the point, when you said:
Do you mean that if a rich person who earns $1 million in income and pays 10% income tax pays more than the poor person who makes $18,000 and pays 10% as well? One pays $100,000 and the other pays $1,800. Or do you mean that the poor person who makes $18,000 should pay 2 or 3% while the rich person should pay 50 or 60%?
You further said:
On this, you and I agree. And as Obama once said, elections have consequences.
@antics: With respect for paying for outcomes, your example was a little simplistic, but that would be the ideal (paying more for good outcomes; not paying as much for poor outcomes). Here’s a more sophisticated discussion of basing medical payments on outcomes, as opposed to paying for services, per se:
http://www.amcp.org/data/jmcp/683-687.pdf
With regard to your hypotheticals:
No, I wouldn’t be in favor of a 65% Federal marginal tax rate. I’d be happy to simply increase the marginal rate from 35% to 39%, because that would increase revenues, decrease debt and decrease borrowing and not reduce incentive of anyone to make money. As I wrote, there’s a “Goldilocks” zone in taxation.
With respect to the general philosophy of progressive taxation, I agree, in general, with the tax philosophies expressed by one of the great GOP Presidents of all time, Theodore Roosevelt. The following is a very nice capsule history of progressive taxation in America:
http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm
I’ve explained previously why rich people are more dependent on the government than not-so-rich people and, therefore, should pay higher taxes not simply because they can afford it, but because they owe more to the government (for their financial success) and therefore should pay more to support the government.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, from the link you provided:
Excuse me, but where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the right to say that someone’s private property is “swollen beyond all healthy limits?”
Sounds an awful lot like:
As to your article link about reimbursements in the medical field, what you cited were agreements between private companies. When the Government gets involved with paying higher for better outcomes then you slip into dangerous territory.
Besides, it is ludicrous to pay for outcome based medicine because there are too many variables involved in the human experience to develop any sort of standard rule set.
My example may have been simplistic, but really where do you draw the line?
A doctor might do all the right things, provide exceptional patient care and the patient might just get worse or die anyway – for unrelated reasons.
Is the doctor in this case not entitled to as much pay because, for reasons not in his control, the patient did not do as well as the Government said he should?
The carrot and stick method of paying physicians just won’t work in medicine. It is fine for factory workers who might get a bonus for higher output.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Rather than veer even more severely off topic (like we aren’t already) to yet something as legally in question and philosophical as direct and indirect taxes, the 1909 Corporate Tax Act and the 16th Amendment fraud perpetuated by ensuing Congresses, I’ll just give you a link I’ve kept around for quite a while on the Constitutionality of the 16th Amendment from Original Intent dot org.
The below excerpts may titillate you into reading, where they will go thru the specific definitions of taxes as indirect, direct, and just what constitutes a “16th Amendment income” that may be treated as an indirect, unapportioned tax. And I assure you, most of what of going on, doesn’t fit the legal definitions.
Then, of course, there’s still the sidebar question as to whether the 16th was even lawfully amended via our constitutional criteria.
If …. after reading the 17 page PDF document INRE Constitutional definitions of taxation and the multitude of references to income taxable as indirect under 16th… you disagree, that’s quite fine. But now you will know why I call it *stealing*. Or, as they put it, “governmental theft of property” and fraud”. It has always been about the questionable legitimacy of these taxes via our Constitution, and various SCOTUS decisions that specifically define 16th Amendment ” income”.
I might also reiterate that it is because of these specific definitions of taxes that Congress played their word games for the O’healthcare mandate…. yet another fraud being perpetuated. They did not use their powers of taxation under the General Welfare clause, and for specific reason.
As the rest, glad to hear you aren’t as radical as you allow yourself to be portrayed. I suggest that your penchant for playing devil’s advocate for debate and amusement may be getting a bit out of hand of late. None of that, however, negates that you do feel any and all of a citizen’s earnings is Congressional open season without permits to abscond at will. That, my friend, is a very dangerous perception to have.
BTW, if you’d like to know who are some of the minds behind Original Intent dot org.. they include a Constitutional law and tax advisor to political candidates; a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent; a former IRS Revenue Officer, producer of the video, “Theft By Deception – Deciphering the Federal Income Tax”, which has now been endorsed by many tax professionals, including several former IRS and DOJ officials; and a Revenue Agent with the IRS turned Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Fraud Examiner.
MATA , I read your comments answering with facts, and I think you are super, and unbeatable,
these 2 last one are like gold nuggets, you got out of your hat, thank you for that extensive work you are doing. bye
Now Larry is following B-Rob’s lead and avoiding my questions.
*sigh*
Drole, but predictable.
@rocks: I just checked my email from my NJ hotel room. I’ve got to be in Trenton for 3 days, where I’m an expert witness in a hepatitis outbreak case. For the last two days, I’ve been going through — word by word — 1,300 pages of verbatim court transcripts. I’m very sorry that I had to move good old F/A down one notch in my to do list priorities.
I was very offended, by the way, by Mata’s trashing whomever it was as leaving “excrement” and then just moving on.
Get a life, people. Not everyone lives and dies for winning every battle on F/A. Particularly the centrists and liberals, who are outnumbered 20-1. I try to stick around and throw stuff back and forth. I can do it, as long as I’m only debating one person. When I start to debate 3 or 4 or 5 at once, it’s just too time consuming. I say what I want to say and then move on. It’s “your” blog. I figure I’m being a gracious guest by giving you the last word. Why don’t you just be gracious, in return, and have the last word and make you point, without the need to do a war dance in the end zone?
- Larry Weisenthal/Trenton, NJ
My apologies Larry. You usually don’t do the avoidance maneuver, so that was what precipitated my comments.
If you do find the time, I had a couple questions about a point YOU raised re: outcome based payments for medicine.
@antics: I apologize also. I’m just very grumpy, facing, as I do, another 300 pages before I can finally call it a night. You can Google the case I’m on, by the way. Not by my name, but with key words. I can’t give any clues beyond this. It’s sort of a cause celeb. The doc in question is totally getting jobbed. It’s a combination of the Sopranos and House and CSI and 9/11, only more unbelievable than any work of fiction. I took the case on the stipulation that I not be paid a cent, because I wanted to have complete freedom to call it as a I saw it. I’ve seen it, and it’s pure lynch mob mentality.
– Larry W
Larry, personally I don’t care if you were “offended” by my “trashing” of drive by johnnie ryan… which is the subject in question. His behavior and presence here on FA predates yours, and has a predictable history. And it’s no surprise your “sensibilities” are so… well… sensitive and ill informed. ‘
I suggest that if you are so easily offended, you either get to know the characters and their own offenses as opposed to blaming it on me…a personal target for your personal snipes of late… or simply move on. You should know me well enough by now that any comment like that by me has some background.
If not… c’est la vie. I’ll just pocket it with the rest of your personal assaults of late, and respond appropriately.
openid.aol.com/runnswim, GOOD LUCK, and get back with us, you know by now that we are the keeper of the truth, best to you. let us know if we can help
Larry, write a book about it and then you can maybe make the NYT Best Sellers list.