I Continue to be Frustrated by the Fact that Liberals seem to be Able to Give Historical Facts and Figures that Support their Point of View. Just as in the Post Below this one, I Posted some Liberal Facts and Figures and a Conservative, this Time, Pamela Hart, was able to Give Facts and Figures as well. I Find the Fact that Both Sides can Give Facts and Figures Troubling.
And Here we go Again. These Facts and Figures were Given to me by Dave Miller in a Comment Below his Post, Was President Bush Right?. Unfortunately, there were not Many Conservatives Chiming in on this Discussion, so I am at the Mercy of what the Liberals are Saying to me, but I know that there are Conservatives that Follow my Blog, so Please, One Again, you are going to have to help me Out.
In One of Dave's Comments he said this...
"Lista, look at almost any graph of unemployment and job loss for the last few years and then respond on the charge of unemployment...
"Here's a good place to start...
Jobs Lost Under Bush vs. Obama
Later he Wrote This...
"Lista, here's a quote from Forbes magazine, published by strong conservative Steve Forbes, who once ran for President as a Republican...
"'The first part of that path entails raising higher revenues. Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.'
"And here's the link...
Even Reagan Raised Taxes
"Here's a link to an article that lays out Reagan's Tax Raising Strategy when he was Gov. of California...
10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You to Know About Ronald Reagan
"Here's a link debunking the Reagan fiscal aura, written not by a liberal dem, but by his former budget director and author of the 'Trickle Down' theory, David Stockman...
Four Deformations of the Apocalypse
"There should be no doubt, Reagan believed in, and lived out rising taxes when necessary to fund the government and eliminate deficits." (End of Quote)
Well, I Found these Links Troubling and I am not a History Expert and have Never Claimed to be. Please, my Conservative Buddies. Help me Out here. What I Need, though, is Historical Facts, not Anger and Accusations of Stupidity and Lying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
Lista: Sorry I’ve been absent from your discussions, actually, I’ve been absent from virtually all political blogs. I’ve been very frustrated lately. And I think it’s for the same reasons as you! I can’t seem to get facts unless I dig for hours on end. It would be really nice to go to a blog and read FACTS instead of spin.
Like this: Reagan RAISED taxes.
My.gosh.I.can’t.stand.it.
Yes. Reagan raised taxes, BUT he LOWERED them also—TWICE, taking the rate from 70% down to 28%.
In 1981 Reagan lowered the federal income tax rate and again in 1986. In 1982 and 1984 he reformed the tax code by making it harder to evade taxes and by closing loopholes. For example, asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions/benefits under pension plans were limited. Then in 1983 he reformed SS, which increased the payroll tax rate and also required the self-employed to pay the full payroll rate.
It would be nice if those who touted the Reagan raised taxes meme also mentioned that he LOWERED them TWICE.
Hopefully I’ll have time to research and address the other issues tomorrow.
Hi Pamela,
I can not Tell you how Grateful I am to you for Doing the Sort of Research that I do not have the Time to do. I am a Slow Reader and am Slow at Doing Research. I'm Even going to have to Admit, that so Far, I have Only Read Two of the Above Links that were Left by Dave Miller and Posted above.
Fortunately, there were a lot of Republicans that Commented below, at Least the First Two of the Above Links and their Comments were Quite Informative.
Probably my Favorite was the One Left by wbwash3, Beneath the "Even Reagon Raised Taxes" Post. His Comment Goes Like this...
"Total cumulative tax cuts = $275.3B, Total cumulative tax increases = $132.7B. TOTAL NET TAX CUTS = $142.6B. 'And You shall Know the Truth...'"
Can you Imagine That? The Total Net Cut was $142.6B and the Democrats are Focused on an Increase of $132.7B, that is Far Less then the Decrease of $275.3B. THE NET IS WHAT MATTERS and to Focus on anything Else is Misleading.
Thank Goodness for a Few Intelligent Souls that are Actually Honest and Know Which Facts are Important and which are not.
There's no Pressure Pamela. Just do what you have Time for.
Lista,
Your mistake is getting sucked in to arguments over personalities, which is what liberals love to do.
Stick to your principles and argue from there. I voted for Bush, but he's no conservative.
How do I know? I look at his record. Spending, new big government programs, big government bailouts, handing trillions to Wall Street. Those are not the actions of a classical conservative.
They try to argue that democrats are better than republicans, but economy and society are affected by so much more than who's in office, and often the real effects of a policy do not kick in until years later.
Nixon was a progressive, and his policies, on top of Johnson's, brought us to the point of Carter, who's mistake was continuing them.
Reagan fundamentally changed our economy and after about three years into his first term, we started seeing results. Bill Clinton was a smart man, and he continued Reagan's policies, resulting in the longest economic boom in America's history.
Too much easy money (easy credit) created the dot com bubble and later the housing bubble. That's what happens when a country does not guard the value of its currency.
9/11 and then George Bush's fundamental mistrust of the people to chart their own economic course caused this downturn. Remember when he told us to all go shopping?
Reagan and Clinton showed us that a strong dollar and economic freedom for all leads to prosperity.
Just look at history. FDR's dictator-like interventions turned a routine panic into a ten year nightmare. History shows us what works and what doesn't.
I've actually had liberals show me statistics that "proved" FDR or Carter was better than Reagan on some point. My answer? If you had a time machine, at what point in time would you rather be raising a new family and looking for a job? FDR's 30's, Carter's 70's or Reagan's 80's/Clinton's 90's?
It's no contest.
Lista,
Here is what you're looking for...
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/11/why-does-income-inequality-matter/
Lista: First, I don’t really like graphs. I’m a numbers gal, meaning I’d much rather see actual numbers (I’m so weird). But that aside, I think that graph is a bit misleading; where are the job numbers after Jan ’10? I’m pretty sure we’ve been losing jobs since then.
Pelosi neglected to show that during Bush’s term, between Sept ‘o3 (Bush’s tax cut went into effect May 2003) and Dec ’07 (right when she starts her graph) that we had 49 months of job GROWTH and the revenues going into the federal coffers were at an all-time HIGH in 2007. So, with those facts, I would say that the tax cuts DID in fact work, although, on the flip side, spending was NOT reigned in. We can’t cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors on shore leave (no insult to sailors!).
We either have to increase taxes to pay for the spending OR if we give tax cuts we must also cut spending. But now that we’re in such a dire mess with deficits as high as the sky, we MUST CUT spending and I would say it’s only a matter of time before we’ll have to increase taxes, as well. As a Conservative who doesn’t like tax increases, it’s difficult for me to say that, but I’m also a realist.
Check out these 2 links here and here so you can see where I got some of my info.
Actually Silverfiddle,
This Post is not about Personalities but about Historical Facts and Liberals and Conservatives Interpret Such Differently. Liberals Interpret the Facts in a Way that Makes it Appear that Raising Taxes is Good for the Economy and Conservatives Interpret the Facts in a Way that Makes it Appear that Lowering Taxes is Good for the Economy.
The Only Way to Determine who is Right is by Evaluating the Facts. Principles are Only Valid if they Work and the Way to Find Out if they Work is By Looking at History, just as you have just said, "History shows us what works and what doesn't.", yet if we can not Agree and Be Honest about what those Historical Facts are, then we have a Problem and that is what this Post is About.
You are not the First to Complain that Bush is not a True Conservative. That's been Said by Lots of People.
"Economy and society are affected by so much more than who's in office."
Exactly, yet Liberals are Famous for Trying to Give Credit or Blame to the One who is in Office whenever it Supports their Point of View to do so.
It Looks Like I've got Quite a Lot to Read. I Keep Getting more and more Links, but that is Good. That's Just what I Wanted; Links from Conservatives, to Balance Out the Links that I've already Received from Liberals.
I'm not sure what to Make of that First Graph, Pamela, yet it does not at all Surprise me that Pelosi would Leave Out a Period of Time in History in which Job Growth was Occurring, just after Bush's Tax Cuts. That's just the Problem. People Include Information that Supports their Point of View and Leave Out Information that does not. Why Can't we Just Look at ALL of the Information and do so Objectively?
Oh Wow! I Just Read the Third Link in my Post that Came from Dave Miller and it just Sounds Like a List of Everything that Reagan did Wrong, yet isn't it Possible to Make such a List Relating to any Human Being. I Wish I hadn't Included that One. It just sounds like a Bunch of Mud Slinging and Negativity.
Graphs can be interesting. For example, if you check the national debt graphs, you will see that there never was a Clinton budget surplus.
That's Interesting. I Wonder if by "Surplus", they just Meant Paying Down the Debt, Instead of Adding to it. Sometimes the Words themselves can be Deceiving.
Dmarks: Thank you for reminding me of THAT one! The Clinton handed Bush a surplus is another meme that chaps my butt.
Lista: There was no surplus, but if by paying down debt you mean Public Debt, then yes. Check out this link here.
I'm curious, Lista: why does it frustrate you that liberals are able to back up their words with facts? Why do you find that 'troubling'?
We see here how folks view
factual data. We view it through the lens of our own bias. At a centrist GOP site, I found an interesting civil literacy quiz which
people get about 50% correct, perhaps up to 55%
if they are academics. I
was very surprized that the
centrist types were scoring
90%, so I cleared my mind
of bias (like any doctor or scientist can and should) and darned if I didn't get 90%!
..there may be other factors, but how we view facts can be quite misleading; as Mark Twain noted...
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
Satyavati,
To Understand the Answer to your Question, you have to Hear the Entire Quote.
"I Continue to be Frustrated by the Fact that Liberals seem to be Able to Give Historical Facts and Figures that Support their Point of View. Just as in the Post Below this one, I Posted some Liberal Facts and Figures and a Conservative, this Time, Pamela Hart, was able to Give Facts and Figures as well."
What Frustrates me, Satyavati, is that Both Sides are Able to Find "Facts" that Support their Point of View, so it would seem that Facts Contradict Facts, yet too Often what is Presented is Half of the Facts, as each Side Only Presents the Half that Appears to Support Their Own Point of View.
This can be Seen in that a Liberal Posted the Linked Article, "Even Reagan Raised Taxes", yet one of the Commenters beneath that Article Pointed Out that...
"Total cumulative tax cuts = $275.3B; Total cumulative tax increases = $132.7B; TOTAL NET TAX CUTS = $142.6B; 'And You shall Know the Truth...'"
The Republican Response was more Complete and Illustrates how the FACT that Reagan did on Occasion Raise Taxes is Irrelevant due to the FACT that the NET RESULT was a CUT, not an Increase.
Some "Facts" are Nothing more than Half Truths and do not Tell the Whole Story and this is What Frustrates me.
Another Example of this is How Nancy Pelosi "Neglected to Show that During Bush's Term between Sept ‘o3 (Bush’s tax cut went into effect May 2003) and Dec ’07 (right when she starts her graph) that we had 49 months of job GROWTH and the revenues going into the federal coffers were at an all-time HIGH in 2007.", so Once again, we see a Half Truth being Presented by a Democrat. This is what I Find Troubling, Satyavati.
BB has Explained rather nicely how this Bias and Half Truth Phenomena Works.
And Thanks Again, Pamela, for your Contributions and Links.
Pamela said:
"The Clinton handed Bush a surplus is another meme that chaps my butt."
Last week I saw a liberal letter-writer in the paper claim that Bill Clinton eliminated the national debt.
The legend grows. Bill who eliminated the debt and his VP who created the Internet.
I bet they left footprints on the moon too. Or maybe not footprints. Bill's probably more of a plaster-caster.
List said:
"That's Interesting. I Wonder if by "Surplus", they just Meant Paying Down the Debt, Instead of Adding to it. Sometimes the Words themselves can be Deceiving."
Clinton ran a budget deficit every one of his 8 years, and the national debt always increased. It never went down.
This is according to the figures from Obama's own Treasury Department.
I'm Really Quite Slow at Reading Links. Here I have Posted a Bunch of Links that were Given to me by a Liberal, Dave Miller, and yet I'm just Now Getting Around to Reading the Last One that I Posted, which is "the Four Deformations of the Apocalypse".
What I Noticed Right Away about it was the Focus on the Unaffordable Nature of the Bush Tax Cuts, rather than the Unaffordable Nature of the Obama Health Plan and "the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015" is Mentioned, yet that which has been "Baked into the Cake" (the Spending) is not Considered the Problem. Instead, the Tax Cuts are Considered the Problem.
The Tax Payers are the Ones who are Called to Make a Sacrifice and the Sacrifice of Obama Care is not even Considered.
I Guess the Fact that Money is No Longer Backed Up by Gold is a Problem and the Growing Debt is a Problem, yet I Fail to see how this Can all be Blamed Solely on Republicans.
Democrats Feel that the Idea that "the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts" is a "Delusion", yet they Use Half Truths in Order to Support this Conclusion.
The Third and Forth Problems Mentioned in this Article is the Partnership between the Government and the Banks and the Loss of Jobs to Over Seas and of Course, this is Blamed on the Republicans as well. To Blame the Loss of Jobs to Over Seas on Republicans, though, is Actually Rather Humorous, for the Unions have Played a Big Part in that one.
The Article may have Actually Accurately Labeled what the Main Problems are in Our Economy, yet the Mistake is in Turning it into a Blame Game and Assigning all of such Blame for these Things on the Republicans. That's Absurd!
Dmarks,
Do you Know that I Think this Imaginary "Surplus" was Even Mentioned in the Article that I just Now Reviewed in my Previous Comment. Apparently, it's an Out Right Lie, Huh?
Hi. This is my first visit, arriving by way of Throwaway Blog. I wonder about these titles, Liberal and Conservative. For example, you write, “Perhaps if we Lived in a More Perfect World, the Perfection of Pure Unregulated Capitalism could Work, but we do not Live in a Perfect World and in Our Imperfect State, the Strong are Continually Oppressing the Weak. Without Regulation, such Oppression will do Nothing but Get Worse and Worse.” In a “perfect” world, either pure socialism or unregulated capitalism would work, yes? Perfection implies the absence of problems, so anyone or any political stripe is safe in saying his or her preferred system would work in a “perfect” world—and that claim will never be tested.
I’m so glad you don’t advocate unregulated capitalism, which, like pure socialism, ignores human nature and is based on idealistic principle rather than “what works.” It’s pretty obvious that an absolutely and completely (i.e., perfectly!) “free” market does not increase the freedom of individuals or societies. And yet (this is my problem with the labels used in your post and all the comments) so many people calling themselves “Conservatives” continue to believe in the Market Myth. They have raised it up as an idol. I ask you, what is “conservative” about such an extreme position? Conservatism and extremism—the words don’t even belong together. And yet--!
Up until very recently I would have called myself “Liberal” but have become increasingly and finally almost completely disenchanted with the way the Democratic Party, supposedly “liberal,” has sold not only the workers of this country but the workers of the world down the river time and time again with “free trade” agreements that have nothing either liberal or conservative about them. I repeat: political decisions are being made, and policies are being carried out, that are not conservative and not liberal, that serve the highest corporate ranks and stockholders while failing, time and again, to provide the promised jobs. Meanwhile “Conservatives” and “Liberals,” distracted by labels and by party affiliations, wrangle back and forth as if their little victories made a difference. They don’t. We are all potential sacrifices to the idol of the Free Trade God, the only one being worshipped and served in today’s political climate. Why? Follow the money. How do people get elected? How do they gain influence and power? Follow the money.
I applaud your search for facts. The search for truth is noble. The desire to assemble an arsenal of facts to overcome facts one finds distasteful? Sad, but I guess it’s human nature.
Recent studies (sorry I don’t have a citation here) also show that human beings do not find facts very convincing. What would you guess happens when someone is convinced in error and then confronted with the error? Apparently—and I find this as shocking as I’m sure you will—the strength of the false belief goes UP!
I wish you courage in your search for truth (which is bigger than any individual fact). Your concern and passion and willingness to think are refreshing. Don’t lose sight, please, of the wonder of life and of this world. Human beings can be very stupid at times. It’s important to take time out from the endless squabbling to take deep breaths and be thankful for being alive.
As for the "health care" plan, as far as I can see it is a health insurance plan and will do nothing to bring down the cost of health care, which is the only way either individuals or insurance companies will be able to afford to pay for care for much longer. The culprit here has been for-profit medicine, but the Market God forbids questioning on that score, whether by Republican, Democrat, "Liberal" or "Conservative."
I've seen charts that show a Clinton surplus, but the charts never actually show the actual amount of the budget deficit and debt.
They take the actual amounts and divide them by some other irrelevant number (% of GDP, etc) in order to cook the figures and intentionally lie about matters.
A) tax rates don't matter when you realize that the Federal government doesn't need to tax you directly to get their revenue. There are essentially 3 ways in which the government can raise revenue. Tax, Borrow, Print the money. All three have the same effect on a taxpayer but one of them is far more deletarious due to the stealth by which it is implemented. This is why ending, or at the very very least auditing the Federal Reserve Bank is absolutely necessary; B) given that, as I previously stated, the Federal Government, regardless of the tax rate, still only collects about 19% of GDP; and C), lowering tax rates is nothing more than a political talking point so long as one tax cut ends up being offset by a regulatory or some other form tax. If I cut your personal income tax by $100, but then raise your property tax by $100, or increase spending (as Reagan did), or borrow money from China, etc. the obvious truth is that I haven't "cut" your taxes.
Silver, yes! Bill Clinton did in fact continue as President Reagan did, cutting spending, and raising revenue [taxes] when necessary.
However the current crop of "conservatives" does not seem to be able to accept that type of pragmatic dual track thinking.
Also, I am waiting for someone [anyone?] to explain how, at least in the short term, tax increases do not lead to bigger deficits.
Lista, while many have come to the defense of President Reagan here, and I am not saying he was not a great leader or politician, no one has attempted to deal with the Forbes or Stockman criticisms of him.
Both of those conservative voices have been somewhat critical of his economic policies.
ANd yes BB, many of us see in leaders what we want to see and interpret their service in the light that we prefer... myself included...
Wow! There are Like 6 Comments Currently in Moderation for this Post. Do to Limited Time, I have Only Posted the First Two, which are both from the Same Person. The Rest will Appear Some Time Tomorrow Morning, or Later Tonight if I have Time.
Hi P.J.Grath,
Welcome. You are Correct in Stating that neither Pure Capitalism or Pure Socialism would Work in a Perfect World. My Point is that the Fact that Our World is not Perfect is the Reason why any Extreme Idea will not Work. I am a Moderate and Believe that the Answer to Almost any Question Almost Always Lies in the Middle.
You Bring Up some Interesting Points about Free Trade and this is not my Area of Expertise and yet I've been Interested in it Lately and my Interest has been on the Level of Skepticism. That is that I've been Quite Skeptical that Totally "Free Trade", just as Totally "Free Markets" is more of a Negative, than a Positive.
The Assembling of Facts should not be for the Purpose of Supporting a Point of View, but for the Purpose of Discovering what's True. You are Absolutely Right that Truth is "bigger than any individual fact". What a Neat Way of Putting that!
Thanks for you Encouraging Words in the Last Paragraph of your First Comment and I Like what you said about "Health Care" in your Next Comment.
To Forbid Regulations of the Sells of Things that are Essential to Life (that is Necessities, not Luxuries), doesn't Work too Well. For the Free Market System to Work, a Costumer has to have the Ability to Choose not to Buy when the Price is too High, yet with Necessities, the Choice to not Buy is Life Threatening and therefore, an Impractical Option and so Prices are Soon Out of Control, when Regulation is Forbidden.
The Non-Profit Idea is a Good One, though, as well.
Ok. I Allowed One More Comment Through Tonight because it is Short. The Other Three, I'll Get to Later.
Dmarks,
I Think that the Liberals are Defining the Word "Surplus" Differently. I'm not Sure Exactly what they Think the Clinton Surplus was, but it wasn't the Paying Off of the Deficit. Knowing the Liberals/Democrats, what ever you want to call them, they are Probably Holding Up Something that was Positive for Only a Day or Two.
very good discussion. i enjoyed reading the comments of all.
Dave, The Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax increases all were followed by increased revenues flowing into the government coffers. The problem is, politicians can't stand to see money just lying around, and so 10 dollars comes in the door they get so excited they spend 15.
And buying goodies with the increased revenue is so much more rewarding that buying back bonds (paying down the debt).
This is a bipartisan phenomenon
Totally Free Trade or Laissez-faire as it is often defined, means a transaction between private parties which is completely free from intervention.
Before there was printed or coined money there were shells, beans, animal skins/furs, used in exchange. Prior to those forms there was straight barter. I build you a farmhouse and in return you hammer out some horseshoes for my horses. This latter is a classic example of free-trade.
The exchange between us is mutually beneficial otherwise we would not engage in it. It is not coerced, forced, or otherwise.
How is this a negative?
Now, you could state that maybe we need some form of regulation to assure that the builder of said farmhouse actually knows what he's doing and so he needs to have a license or some other such thing. Similarly, we could apply the same criteria upon the horseshoe maker.
Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work. This fact does not suddenly disappear with the appointment of a regulatory authority. Were this the case, the USDA would have effectively prohibited tainted, spinach, tomatoes, and peanuts from finding their way onto store shelves.
Therefore, as a Libertarian Lista I will tell you how in a free society, such transactions would work.
You would build me a farmhouse. In exchange for said work I'd craft you horseshoes for your 2 horses. Each one of us would assume the risks of one another not fulfilling our obligation. If either one of us were aprehensive about our arrangement, we could, if we both agreed to it and its cost, mutually agree upon a private arbiter or private court to facilitate a judgement should the contractual agreement go sour.
It only seems like extremism Lista when you don't think things through. Labeling Libertarianism or Voluntaryism or Capitalism and the like as "extreme" only ends up shutting down the mental processes in favor of labeling it as unworkable or "extreme".
One small clarification, Lista. You said that neither pure capitalism nor pure communism would work in a perfect world. Did you mean that? I said that either would work, because in a perfect world anything would work. Not very important, though. It's this world we live in. Interesting conversation. Thank you for welcoming me to it.
She Chuckles. I can't Seem to Keep Up with my Own Blog. There are Still Three more Comments in Moderation from this Morning and I haven't had the Time yet to Respond to the Two, or Actually Three, Last Ones from Yesterday. Still Busy too. Perhaps I'll do Better Tonight.
For Now, Here's some of what I Wrote in my Word Processor Last Night, in Response to Yesterday's Comments...
Soap,
I Agree with you that the Fed Needs Auditing and Possibly Even Ended Completely and I'm Glad that you Brought Up Point B again cause it is Relevant here. In Fact, I'm not Sure the I Disagree with anything that you Said in your Comment from Yesterday.
Dave,
"I am waiting for someone [anyone?] to explain how, at least in the short term, tax increases do not lead to bigger deficits."
Tax Decreases can Stimulate the Economy and Lead to Higher GDP and therefore more Revenue and as Soap has Said, Regardless of the Actual Rate, 19% is About the Amount of the GDP that the Government Collects, so the GDP Numbers are Really What Matter even more than the Tax Rate at any Given Time. Here is Soap's Link again that he Left Below my Previous Post...
The Remarkably Stable Amount of Federal Revenue as a Percentage of GDP
Hi Griper. More for Dave Later, as well as for those who Wrote this Morning.
"GDP Numbers are Really What Matter..."
GDP Numbers don't matter either unless you extract the government's own makework from the equation.
GDP is not an accurate measure for the simple fact that the government's own GDP figures tally government projects as production. This essentially means that the government can spend money on having NASA build a rocket, launch said rocket, then blow up said rocket and this is documented as productivity.
Similarly, the government could hire people to dig ditches then hire another group to come by and fill them up.
In the eyes of government they're providing jobs and this is all productive work though in reality it produces nothing. It is a zero sum game.
At the Time in which I Wrote this Comment, I had Only One Comment Left in Moderation. Soap's Comment, this Morning, was Longer then the Other Two, so I'll Deal with it Tonight.
Silverfiddle,
Over Time, Tax Cuts will cause Increased Revenue because of a Stimulated Economy.
Grath,
What I Meant to say was that Neither Pure Capitalism, nor Pure Socialism would Work in a Imperfect World, or Perhaps I could have said Either Pure Capitalism or Pure Socialism will work in a Perfect World. Either Way, that was a Misprint.
My Next Couple of Sentences are what is Key, for "The Fact that Our World is not Perfect is the Reason why any Extreme Idea will not Work. I am a Moderate and Believe that the Answer to Almost any Question Almost Always Lies in the Middle."
You are Welcome here any time, Grath.
More for Dave Later and also for Soap.
Ok Soap,
I'm going to have to Think about what you said and I Still have Another Comment from you in Moderation that I have not yet Read. I've got to go now. More Tonight.
P.J. Grath said:
"As for the "health care" plan...The culprit here has been for-profit medicine, but the Market God forbids questioning on that score, whether by Republican, Democrat, "Liberal" or "Conservative."
This "culprit", the free market, has in other sectors brought down prices and increased quality. However, there's not been a free market in health insurance for a long long time. There's a huge web of regulations that prevent all health insurance providers from competing in all 50 states.
It's a perfect example of regulations put in to serve illegitimate interests, instead of to protect the public.
Last time I checked, there were hundreds of health insurance providers out there, but due to the limiting regulations, only a few are available in each state.
The idea of tearing down these walls can only improve things. A lot, I think.
I Guess before I do Anything Else, I should go Back Up to Dave Miller's Comment, that he Left on March 14, (Yesterday), at 4:11 PM.
"no one has attempted to deal with the Forbes or Stockman criticisms of him." That is Reagan.
I had to Go Back and Look at the Articles again to see which Ones Related to the Two People that you Mentioned, Dave. It Looks Like the Article, "Even Reagan Raised Taxes", was Provided by Forbes.com and the Article, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse", was the One Written by David Stockman.
There was a lot of Criticism of the First of these Articles Written in the Comments below it and I have Quoted my Favorite of these Comments Twice Now, on March 11, at 8:58 PM & on March 13, at 2:09 PM. Here it is a Third Time...
"Total cumulative tax cuts = $275.3B; Total cumulative tax increases = $132.7B; TOTAL NET TAX CUTS = $142.6B; 'And You shall Know the Truth...'" This is the Very First Comment Below that Post and was Written by someone who goes by "wbsasg3”.
I Responded to the Forbes Article on March 11 and then again on March 13. I Referenced them by both Date and Time above.
As to the Stockman Article, I Responded to that on March 13, at 6:37 PM, so I have Responded to Both of these Things. Go Back and Read these Comments again.
This Comment will be in Response to Soap's Comment that he Wrote on March 15,at 6:49 AM
"Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work."
You are Assuming that the Goal of Laws is Total Prevention, or Perfection, yet Perfection can never be Accomplished because we Live in an Imperfect World. Yet to Use the Absence of Perfection as an Argument against Efforts at Improvement is a Faulty Argument. The Purpose of Laws is to Improve on the Level of Risk in the World, not to Reach some Unattainable Level of Perfection.
The Total Absence of Laws is Anarchy, Soap, and by that Argument Alone, we Know that at Least some Laws and Regulation are Necessary.
I'm Going to Skip Over what you Wrote at 1:37 Today, since I have Two Other Comment that Came in Later that I'd Like to Take a Look at First.
Oh, Maybe it's Only One Comment. The Other is on Another Post.
Hi Dmarks,
"This 'culprit', the free market, has in other sectors brought down prices and increased quality."
That's Right, Dmarks, when it comes to Luxury, or that which the Customer can do without if the Price is too High, the Free Market Works Beautifully, yet with Necessities, it doesn't Always Work Quite as well.
Removing Regulations that Prevent Competition between States is a Good First Step, though, and Probably should be Tried First before we Assume that the Free Market has Failed.
I've Probably got more that I could say to Soap, but I'm Tired now, so I Think I'll Put that Off Until Tomorrow.
Speaking of health care and free markets, here's a good article that elaborates on DMarks's comments...
The Myth of Free Market Healthcare
http://mises.org/daily/5066/The-Myth-of-FreeMarket-Healthcare
By pointing out Lista that "we live in an imperfect world", you perfectly illustrate my point. In the example of free-trade which I used, both men assume risks (that is to say they accept this imperfect world Lista). What is the purpose of regulation but to correct imperfections (not make perfect but to correct or minimize)? And here of course is the fallacy of your argument Lista. The regulatory apparatus no more corrects imperfections (in an imperfect world) than would those imperfections be corrected without the regulatory apparatus.
Another case in point would be the myriad of recalls on products which are facilitated by the government's regulatory entities Lista but instead by the companies themselves. And why might that be???? SIMPLE.
If the company wishes to thrive within the marketplace (a free marketplace), they are going to have to establish trust and reliabilty within it.
I've spent the better part of 10 years reading about Agorism and the like Lista. I've heard the arguments you are making 10 times over and they simply do not have any merit with respect to the necessity towards this regulatory body.
What's more, what you are talking about and advocating is not free-trade. Free means free. Absent from regulatory mandates. I want a farmhouse, you want horseshoes. What skin is it off anyone's teeth if we mutually agree on this transaction?
Further, and I stated this previously, why could not a regulatory entity be PRIVATE and OPTIONAL for the parties engaging in said transaction?
Regulatory mandates do not comport with Free-Markets. If you want regulatory mandates then call your trade agreement NAFTA or CAFTA but don't try to pass it off as free anything.
* Correction
"Another case in point would be the myriad of recalls on products which are facilitated NOT by the government's regulatory entities Lista but instead by the companies themselves."
I knew what you meant about perfect/imperfect, Lista, and I agree. Just wanted to make sure others knew what we were saying.
On the comment from Soapster about libertarian view, he denies this requires a perfect world. Look around. The less regulation we have had in the banking “industry” (misnomer, IMO), the bigger the nightmare.
dmarks, your remarks about health insurance are well taken, but I’m talking about the cost of health care, not insurance. We must distinguish between the two.
In general, of course, we need to let the free market do its work in areas where it works well. But education (because a democracy cannot afford uneducated citizens), health care (because health should not be a luxury) and banking (because allowing financial managers to get rich while impoverishing rather than serving their clients should be a crime) cannot be left to pure market forces.
Those who insist on the complete purity of the market put theory above reality. Paying someone to build me a house is one thing; the convoluted, clandestine, double-dealing operations of Wall Street are not so simple. There is nothing tainted or creepy or disgusting about a “mixed” economy. It is a moderate, sensible middle road that both protects individuals’ needs in society and also respects their freedom and self-determination.
I do appreciate that this discussion seems to have broken away from the "Conservative" and "Liberal" labels with which it began. We're talking to each other now, not past and about each other. Libertarianism is a clear position. I don't buy it (did once, for years, when younger), but at least it's clear what's meant by the name, which is not true of the labels I put in quotes. Anyway, I'm pleased by the give-and-take. Too often Americans preach only to their own choirs. It's good to get into conversation that involves disagreement.
I Wonder if there is a Way to Limit the Number of Comments that any One Person Submits in One Day. I'm having Trouble Keeping Up with the Soapster and in Truth, I would Like to Wrap the Discussion Up in Relation to this Post and Start Over again with a New Post, but when I am Overwhelmed with Comments, it is Hard for me to Catch my Breath enough to do that.
Thanks, Silverfiddle, for the Link. I'll Try and Read it soon.
Yes Grath,
We are seeing Eye to Eye just Fine and I Agree with what you've said. The Only Thing that I want to Add is that though there is a Negative Side to Labels, when we Strip these Labels Away, it is Difficult to Find Appropriate Words to Replace them.
Before I Look at the 3, no it's 4, Comments from Soap that are Currently in Moderation, I Need to Write a Response to an Earlier One. The Comment that I Skipped Over Yesterday was Submitted by Soap, at 1:37 PM.
Your Comments Really Make me Think, Soap. I Guess there are Two Ways to Look at GDP Numbers. One is in Order to Compare One's Productivity with the Rest of the World and I guess that if Things are Counted that are not Really that Productive, than these Numbers are Misleading.
Another Way to Look at GDP Numbers is in Relation to Government Revenue. For this Purpose, the amount of Money Earned is what is Relevant because the Government gets a Percentage of it. It seems a Little Silly, though, to Count the Government's Contribution to GDP in this Context, because First they have to Put Money Out before they Can Collect Back a Percentage of what they have Paid, such as from the Wages of Government Workers.
As Far as Revenue Goes, doesn't it make more Sense to Count the Non-Government GDP, or the Private Sector GDP, as more Valuable in Terms of Revenue, because here they get a Percentage of something that they did not have to put Money into, yet when they Collect a Percentage of the GDP that was Produced within the Government, they are Actually just getting a Percentage Back for Wages that they had to Pay for.
Hi Soap,
Aside from the Comment from you that I just now Posted; that is the One that you Submitted at 5:43 AM, you have Submitted 4 Others and I'm not even going to Post them all because you are Over Whelming me and I Need a Break from your Relentless Comments.
What you are Illustrating in this Comment, Soap, is a Form of Black and White Thinking. That is that it has to be all One Way or the All the Other. In other Words, it is Either All Regulation, or No Regulation and there is no In between.
"Accepting that the World is Imperfect" does not Mean, Soap, that we can not Work towards Making it Better. To "Correct" and to "Minimize" are not Synonyms, Soap. The Purpose of Regulation is not to "Correct", but to "Minimize". You are Confusing your Extreme, Perfection Language with your Moderate, Improvement Language. As a Black and White Thinker, you are having Trouble Making the Distinction.
Yes, the Free Market will Eventually Correct a lot of it's Own Problems, but in my Opinion, when it Comes to Issues that are Life Threatening, such as Food Safety, the Free Market Process does not Work Fast Enough.
Your Paragraph on "Free Trade", Soap, also Illustrates Black and White, All One Way or All the Other Thinking, for Things have to be Totally "Free" and Unregulated or Totally Regulated and there is no In between. You just Can not Comprehend anything that is Grey, such as Some Regulation and Some Freedom Existing Together.
Do you understand the meaning of the word free?
There's no "in the middle" Lista.
You either have regulations or your don't have regulations.
It doesn't matter if you have 2 regulations or you have 2,000 thousand regulations.
Regulations are regulations. They either exist or they don't.
You can spin your little middle road jargon all day long but the fact of the matter is that you either impose regulations or you don't impose regulations.
Yeah...it's black or white.
Gray area is just your fancy schmancy way of trying not to sound like you have "too many" regualations.
It's a cop-out.
If your husband has an affair, it doesn't make one bit of difference if he slept with 2 women or if he slept with 100 women.
He either had an affair or he didn't.
You either have regulations or you don't.
Black and White!!!!!
Honestly Soap,
I Need you to Stop. I have only Read what I have Posted and Responded to. Aside from the Ones I've Posted, there are Still 5 Comments from you in Moderation for this Post and that is More than I'm Willing to Allow.
"Do you understand the meaning of the word free? There's no 'in the middle' Lista. You either have regulations or your don't have regulations."
These Statements only Support what I have Said about you, Soap. The Total Lack of Laws and Regulation is Anarchy and Anarchy is not Freedom.
"It's a cop-out."
Black and White Thinking is a Cop Out, Soap. Evaluating what is too much or too Little is Hard Work. Black and White is Easier and Less Effort.
Actually it does Matter if my Husband Messes Up Only Once and is Greatly Sorry, or if he Messes Up Continually with no Remorse. This Does Matter and the Circumstances Matter and the Reasons Why Matter. All of this Matters. To be Unwilling to Evaluate Things on a Case by Case Basis is Lazy.
"Some Freedom."
You mean like choosing between McDonalds or Burger King or between Coke or Pepsi??
That's not freedom Lista. Freedom means free. Free to choose Taco Bell or Wendy's or 7up or Sunkist or Mountain Dew.
Free or not free. Black or white.
Once or continually Lista you still aren't getting it are you???
I didn't ask you to what degree you cared for christ sake. He either cheated or he didn't.
black and white is not the cop out. Imposing a grey area where you establish no concretes, no absolutes, no truths....that is the cop out and you've just made every attempt to do that.
Last comment from me. You were never good at staying on topic anyway. Sorry if the pace of life is too much for you to deal with. Wouldn't want you to feel "overwhelmed" and get tired.
Or the Freedom to Rape or Murder. I Guess if these Options are Removed then there is no Longer Freedom. Yeh, Right. That's Anarchy, Soap, and Anarchy is not Free.
Here's another Twist. You have to Have Money to be Free. Not Everyone has the Freedom to Buy a Yacht or an Expensive Home. Why? Because these Things Take Money and not Everyone has the Genetic Ability to Thrive in a Capitalist Society, so in this Since there is a lot of Lack of Freedom in the "Free" Market System.
I'm done Talking for now, Soap. Please go away.
You are the One who isn't Getting it, Soap. You are Focused on the Definition of a Word, that is the Word "Cheated". The Definition of a Word is not What Matters. I guess what I am saying is that what you are Focusing on and what you are Talking about doesn't Matter and whether you Asked me what I do or don't Care about doesn't Matter. I Like Talking about what Matters, not about the Technical Definitions of Words.
Imposing Black and White on someone who Sees the Reality of Grey is what is the Cop Out.
"Imposing a grey area where you establish no concretes, no absolutes, no truths...."
I Never Once Said that there were NO Concretes, NO Absolutes and NO Truths. That Statement is also Black and White, for it Implies that either Everything is Absolute or Nothing is and that there can not be a little of Both.
If Black and White is all you Understand, Soap, then you are Never Going to Understand me, or Put another way, YOU are the One who is not Ever Going to Get it.
Let's Look at this Conversation for what it is. "You are Coping Out." "No, you are." No, you are." "You're not Getting it." "No, you're not Getting it." Gee! Such Adult Conversation. She Chuckles. lol.
"Sorry if the pace of life is too much for you to deal with."
I Know that that was Meant to be an Insult, but I have Never Considered being an Imperfect Human Being an Insult. I am who I am and I Like who I am.
One of my big problems with hard libertarianism or Randism is that it does see things in such strong black-and-white. It's like a form of theocratic politics. Strong ideology going too far trumping measures of pragmatism.
I remember once having a discussion with a Randist about the equation A = A means that public libraries are evil.
------------
P. J. said: "On the comment from Soapster about libertarian view, he denies this requires a perfect world. Look around. The less regulation we have had in the banking “industry” (misnomer, IMO), the bigger the nightmare."
Actually, a big regulation/intervention caused the banking mortgage collapse and the economic crisis. The government made banks make bad loans and dump them into Fannie-Mae which was a sump-hole for bad debt. Entirely unsustainable, and everything broke. Yes, the government strongly encouraged banks to make bad loans. If not for this regulation, we'd be a lot better off.
The Problem with the Regulation that Forces Bad Bank Loans is that it did not Consider the Cost Benefit Equation Correctly. The Benefit to those who are Given the Loans was Considered, but not the Cost to the Banks. The Current State of our Government is Imbalanced in the Direction of the Consumer and Away from the Needs of the Business Man. To be Balanced any Governmental Decision has to Consider both of these Parties, not Only One, and that is the Problem in a Nut Shell.
Please let’s not focus on bad loans so exclusively that we forget all those complicated “products” that financial institutions came up with, aimed at making money for them while they ducked any responsibility and often were purposely losing their investors’ money. Those so-called “products” would not have been possible without deregulation. The regulation was put in place because of similar, earlier (but not nearly as sophisticated in a Machiavellian way) outrages by banks. Then people conveniently forgot, and banking interests, through their lobbyists, were able to remove the protections and apply once again the BOHICA principle. (Out of deference to you, Lista, I’m leaving that as an acronym, but you can infer the meaning, I’m sure.) There were also plenty of “good” loans that were really bad owing to the overvaluation of the market—again, not by accident.
I agree with you about Randism, dmarks. I belonged to that cult for a few years, long ago, but cults become wearisome if one is not a "true believer" but continues to think and question. No individual or group of humans has the WHOLE, FINAL TRUTH.
I'm Laughing, in a way, at the Length of this Comment Thread. Ok. Fine. Whatever. It's just that I Think this is my Longest One Yet. Your Last Sentence, J.B.Grath, is really True.
PJ: If the government would remove all backstops and protections from the banks, making them eat their own losses instead of blowing a hole in the treasury to refill their pockets, the kind of crap you describe would stop immediately.
These crony crapitalists would not gamble so recklessly with their own money. That's deregulation I think most of us could get behind
This Comment Thread has been Continued on my Newest Post. Please Direct your Comment There. The Link is Below.
Post a Comment