bchad, is it your position that slippery slope arguments are never valid, i.e. they are a sort of logical fallacy?
Calcfa - I hesitate to engage those that subscribe to conspiracy theories, but do you really believe the US Gov would collect greater tax revenues at a 100% rate than they do currently?
Chi Paul Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchad, is it your position that slippery slope > arguments are never valid, i.e. they are a sort of > logical fallacy? No, my point is that there is a LONG way between raising the tax rate to the levels of the 1990s or advocating publicly funded roads, and the outcome of Socialist abolition of private property and human rights, and that there are plenty of things that keep it from being slippery.
agree, but it seemed to me you were using the same slippery slope argument to discount any such argument.
I was using hyperbole, because to me, the gap between adjusting tax rates a bit and running gulags was so great as to be laughable. The post I was responding to implied that definition #2 of Socialism defined by an earlier post demonstrated that any change that involved an increase in government activity, no matter how small, was tantamount to Socialism, because it was therefore an interim ground on the way to Communism.
“we need to rescind obamacare to give our companies a chance to compete globally with the german companies kicking our asses! oh wait…they have universal healthcare and have since bismarck’s time?! obamas a socialist repeal everything!” david wessel had a great column in the wsj talking about how captured our congress is by finance and healthcare and that no recovery is possible until that is reversed.
CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^what a bunch of muddle. I personally know a good > handful of CEOs/CFOs that won’t hire because of > potential increases in taxes and uncertain/more > stringent regulations (except in legal, that area > is doing swimmingly). Claiming that people are > RNC loyalists just because they were brought up > that way seems to just be a little bit of stretch > doesn’t it? I could say the same that you are > just a brainwashed bleeding heart liberal. > > This kind of rapport doesn’t help anyone. Is it > any wonder why we waited to the last minute with > the deficit with this kind of toxic garble spewing > around. You are quick to make sweeping > assumptions and have no issue with lumping those > who have a different viewpoint from your own into > one giant group. > > Seriously do you even read what your are writing? > If anyone is in denial it appears to be you. You > seem to have just as much pent up rage as the > regular tea bagger and acting just as stupid… Deny one fact that I wrote. If it looks like rage, it is based on fact and not ingrained ideological bias. A party who counts those that I mentioned as candidates has some serious issues with denial. Unlike my “denial” that you claim, yet dont dispute on fact, I dont deny evolution, that separation of church and state is in the constitution, or that sex education works when my kids are 0-2 in out of wedlock births. So come up with some facts of your own, or dispute mine. Calling me a bleeding heart liberal for attacking the Tea Party? Try some facts to dispute my conclusions, I dont see any above. And I lump people together because THEY chose these candidates who ran on THEIR ticket. We saw these elections and rhetoric because it was national. We didnt see each and every one of these congressional elections of candidates who won. Calling BO a Democrat isnt lumping together, its the truth. Even McCain called their actions “foolish”. That was the Republican nominee for POTUS. If you read into the SP downgrade tonight, they specifically describe the “political climate in DC” as one of their deciding factors. And if you followed the negotiations, you would know that the reason Boehner had so much clout is that he had reps in his party who were willing to let the US default on its obligations. While Im not a fan of Republicans, at least they were willing to negotiate and give a little while taking a little. If you have ever done coursework in bargaining, the strongest position you can ever take is that you are batshit crazy and dont subscribe to logical game theory. Kind of like a game of chicken. Feel free to dispute any facts, or call me a bleeding heart liberal. This muddle (by the way who uses that word?) is about the lack of understanding of bargaining, the economy, and ideological stubbornness. When subjectivity trumps objectivity, you have a problem. Where is my denial? By the way, I will accept your observation about executives not hiring, I know smaller business owners that dont care. But attorneys? I know plenty and count them as friends. The ones I know are junior associates and are scared sh!tless about their jobs right now because the partners are losing business or reducing fees to get work in the door. And there was a great article in Bloomberg last month about the new legal assistant/non partner track position many new attorneys are finding themselves in. I have no love loss for this profession, they have been sucking off of other peoples hard work for a long time.
calcfa2011 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFABLACKBELT Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ^what a bunch of muddle. I personally know a > good > > handful of CEOs/CFOs that won’t hire because of > > potential increases in taxes and uncertain/more > > stringent regulations (except in legal, that > area > > is doing swimmingly). Claiming that people are > > RNC loyalists just because they were brought up > > that way seems to just be a little bit of > stretch > > doesn’t it? I could say the same that you are > > just a brainwashed bleeding heart liberal. > > > > This kind of rapport doesn’t help anyone. Is it > > any wonder why we waited to the last minute > with > > the deficit with this kind of toxic garble > spewing > > around. You are quick to make sweeping > > assumptions and have no issue with lumping > those > > who have a different viewpoint from your own > into > > one giant group. > > > > Seriously do you even read what your are > writing? > > If anyone is in denial it appears to be you. > You > > seem to have just as much pent up rage as the > > regular tea bagger and acting just as stupid… > > > Deny one fact that I wrote. If it looks like rage, > it is based on fact and not ingrained ideological > bias. A party who counts those that I mentioned as > candidates has some serious issues with denial. > Unlike my “denial” that you claim, yet dont > dispute on fact, I dont deny evolution, that > separation of church and state is in the > constitution, or that sex education works when my > kids are 0-2 in out of wedlock births. > > So come up with some facts of your own, or dispute > mine. Calling me a bleeding heart liberal for > attacking the Tea Party? Try some facts to dispute > my conclusions, I dont see any above. And I lump > people together because THEY chose these > candidates who ran on THEIR ticket. We saw these > elections and rhetoric because it was national. We > didnt see each and every one of these > congressional elections of candidates who won. > Calling BO a Democrat isnt lumping together, its > the truth. Even McCain called their actions > “foolish”. That was the Republican nominee for > POTUS. > > If you read into the SP downgrade tonight, they > specifically describe the “political climate in > DC” as one of their deciding factors. And if you > followed the negotiations, you would know that the > reason Boehner had so much clout is that he had > reps in his party who were willing to let the US > default on its obligations. While Im not a fan of > Republicans, at least they were willing to > negotiate and give a little while taking a little. > If you have ever done coursework in bargaining, > the strongest position you can ever take is that > you are batshit crazy and dont subscribe to > logical game theory. Kind of like a game of > chicken. Feel free to dispute any facts, or call > me a bleeding heart liberal. > > This muddle (by the way who uses that word?) is > about the lack of understanding of bargaining, the > economy, and ideological stubbornness. When > subjectivity trumps objectivity, you have a > problem. Where is my denial? > > By the way, I will accept your observation about > executives not hiring, I know smaller business > owners that dont care. But attorneys? I know > plenty and count them as friends. The ones I know > are junior associates and are scared sh!tless > about their jobs right now because the partners > are losing business or reducing fees to get work > in the door. And there was a great article in > Bloomberg last month about the new legal > assistant/non partner track position many new > attorneys are finding themselves in. I have no > love loss for this profession, they have been > sucking off of other peoples hard work for a long > time. All that and no response to Chi Paul? I was hoping to see a refute of the LaFfer curve. I’ve never seen an attempt. Maybe we will witness genius of which no one is familiar.
The Laffer curve makes sense. The only problem is that there’s no way to know on which side of the “cutting taxes means more revenue” hump we are. When taxes on the wealthiest were 90%, it was pretty plausible that cutting taxes would be good for the economy and good for federal budgets. But now, it’s much much harder to tell either. Cutting taxes look likely to reduce budget revenues, and if that means that interest rates rise, it could well be bad for the economy too.