Corner turned in Iraq?

[bobblehead]

Not just not what I said, not even close. I am in complete agreement that raising taxes hurts the economy and thus tax revenues. I was simply saying spending by transfer of wealth doesn't work because of just that....we are in complete agreement. I was merely covering all sides of the arguement.

I then went on to address where we disagree which is borrowing money, or printing money to hand out, and how this can not possibly make itself up in tax revenues because it has no keynsian multiplier effect because it is not infrastructure. It will have negative effects of paying it back eventually or devaluing the dollar.

If it did make it up by a multiplier effect why not just borrow or print 800 Bazillion dollars and hand it out, then the gov't would get 900 bazillion dollars of tax revenue for a net gain? The reason is because borrowing/printing money DOES have negative effects. Some positive, but as a long term strategy negative will outweigh it.

[texaspackerbacker]

I would say on taxes you side with me, on most of the rest you side with them.

Economically speaking, that may be true.

I like to think we are pretty much like minded on defense, foreign policy, security, most morality issues, etc. Even on "welfare" type spending, I'm kinda lukewarm about it. I can see you point about the lack of fairness of it, etc. I'm just saying, given my interpretation of Keynesian Economics and the Multiplier, we can afford it WITHOUT any sacrifice by the "haves", so why not? To leave the poor wallow in poverty just out of spite or because they deserve to be poor, that would kinda lower us to the class envy crap practiced by liberals.

[texaspackerbacker]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

I guess first of all because keynes DID limit his arguement to infrastructure. Secondly I have made my own point several times, but here goes again.

If you tax the rich to give to the poor you simply change the owner AND stifle the economy by taking the money several steps away from the producer/job provider. It could get spent by the original owner just as quickly and in a more positive manner.

If you borrow the money to give to the poor it still has a negative effect. There is no way the effect of the velocity of money(which is what you describe) can make itself up in tax revenues, it can only stimulate a sluggish economy short term to be made up later when the economy is strong. It can also have negative effects on inflation, capital available, and/or strength of the dollar (if we print to repay).

Furthermore, keynes not only limited it to infrastructure, but also limited it to getting out of depression/recession. Both points I have made over and over. Remember, I'm not dismissing what you say out of hand, I'm simply saying that it is limited to these two uses/occasions.

You keep making the argument--the tired old argument made by the Dem/libs--that you need to RAISE TAXES to pay for spending. You do NOT. If you do "raise taxes on the rich" to "pay for" spending programs for the poor, then yeah, it's a wash or worse--because of the tax increases. That was the case from the LBJ era to the Jimmy Carter era, and we all know what kind of a mess that left the country in.

Kennedy knew that you had to CUT taxes, even though he was horrendously liberal otherwise. Reagan, as some libs in here are so quick to point out, did not shirk from spending what was needed to rebuild the Carter-decimated military and still achieved huge economic success with his ttax cutting.

Your infrastructure only argument doesn't hold water unless you make the flawed assumption you keep making--tax increases to "pay for" the spending. Nope. It pays for itself, courtesy of the Multiplier.

__________________________________________________ __________________

Ziggy, I direct you to the second paragraph of his response--the one about taxing the rich and changing the owner, etc. That IS what he said.

I'm carrying the load for you libs on this welfare spending issue--and our of pure contrariness, you STILL whine.

[bobblehead]

I would say on taxes you side with me, on most of the rest you side with them.

Economically speaking, that may be true.

I like to think we are pretty much like minded on defense, foreign policy, security, most morality issues, etc. Even on "welfare" type spending, I'm kinda lukewarm about it. I can see you point about the lack of fairness of it, etc. I'm just saying, given my interpretation of Keynesian Economics and the Multiplier, we can afford it WITHOUT any sacrifice by the "haves", so why not? To leave the poor wallow in poverty just out of spite or because they deserve to be poor, that would kinda lower us to the class envy crap practiced by liberals.

Yes economically. I may be a bit different with you on security as I think the patriot act was a mess and incursion of our freedoms. Morally I don't care what people do, don't ask me to pay for it, I think you are on the same page, although I'm not religous, I'm sick of the left mocking those who are as though they know the universal truth to some secret.

I'm not for letting the poor wallow in poverty, I think the gingrich idea of 2 years on welfare, 5 years lifetime is pretty fair. But I've been very clear that to pay them to sit home forever has a negative effect on the economy as that money has to come from somewhere and you and I agree taxing the rich isn't a good place to try and get it. My arguement has very little to do with lack of fairness in all honesty, but lack of fairness is a legitimate arguement (when it comes to tax and spend).

[texaspackerbacker]

Not just not what I said, not even close. I am in complete agreement that raising taxes hurts the economy and thus tax revenues. I was simply saying spending by transfer of wealth doesn't work because of just that....we are in complete agreement. I was merely covering all sides of the arguement.

I then went on to address where we disagree which is borrowing money, or printing money to hand out, and how this can not possibly make itself up in tax revenues because it has no keynsian multiplier effect because it is not infrastructure. It will have negative effects of paying it back eventually or devaluing the dollar.

If it did make it up by a multiplier effect why not just borrow or print 800 Bazillion dollars and hand it out, then the gov't would get 900 bazillion dollars of tax revenue for a net gain? The reason is because borrowing/printing money DOES have negative effects. Some positive, but as a long term strategy negative will outweigh it.

If--and ONLY if--you make the assumption that the Multiplier /Effect doesn't work for anything except infrastructure type spending, yes. but I ask you again, CAN YOU CITE ONE VALID REASON--not merely that Keynes didn't extend it beyond the infrastructure--WHY THE MULTIPLEIR SHOULDN'T WORK PERFECTLY WELL FOR ANY KIND OF SPENDING--assuming the spending is done within this country?

[bobblehead]

I have made my arguements, you are free to accept or reject them.

Taxing to get the money...well, we agree.

Borrowing, reduces capital in the real world for the producers to access, no amount of multiplier will make up for borrowing and giving away long term. The positive effect may offset some of the cost, but not all of it.

Printing, deflates the dollar and is inflationary.

[MJZiggy]

I guess first of all because keynes DID limit his arguement to infrastructure. Secondly I have made my own point several times, but here goes again.

If you tax the rich to give to the poor you simply change the owner AND stifle the economy by taking the money several steps away from the producer/job provider. It could get spent by the original owner just as quickly and in a more positive manner.

If you borrow the money to give to the poor it still has a negative effect. There is no way the effect of the velocity of money(which is what you describe) can make itself up in tax revenues, it can only stimulate a sluggish economy short term to be made up later when the economy is strong. It can also have negative effects on inflation, capital available, and/or strength of the dollar (if we print to repay).

Furthermore, keynes not only limited it to infrastructure, but also limited it to getting out of depression/recession. Both points I have made over and over. Remember, I'm not dismissing what you say out of hand, I'm simply saying that it is limited to these two uses/occasions.

You keep making the argument--the tired old argument made by the Dem/libs--that you need to RAISE TAXES to pay for spending. You do NOT. If you do "raise taxes on the rich" to "pay for" spending programs for the poor, then yeah, it's a wash or worse--because of the tax increases. That was the case from the LBJ era to the Jimmy Carter era, and we all know what kind of a mess that left the country in.

Kennedy knew that you had to CUT taxes, even though he was horrendously liberal otherwise. Reagan, as some libs in here are so quick to point out, did not shirk from spending what was needed to rebuild the Carter-decimated military and still achieved huge economic success with his ttax cutting.

Your infrastructure only argument doesn't hold water unless you make the flawed assumption you keep making--tax increases to "pay for" the spending. Nope. It pays for itself, courtesy of the Multiplier.[/quote]

__________________________________________________ __________________

Ziggy, I direct you to the second paragraph of his response--the one about taxing the rich and changing the owner, etc. That IS what he said.

I'm carrying the load for you libs on this welfare spending issue--and our of pure contrariness, you STILL whine.[/quote]

He said IF you tax the rich to give to the poor...he wasn't suggesting that that's what they SHOULD do.

And it depends on what you're talking about as far as welfare spending. I don't think even the most liberal are talking about just handing checks to people as many suggest (unless you're talking about simple unemployment benefits), but giving them a hand with the process of bettering themselves and making them more self-sufficient.

[texaspackerbacker]

DUH!, Ziggy. Of course he's not advocating that. He's a conservative--some would say even more so than I am.

His point was that IF--like you said--you use government spending in some form for the poor, you have to tax the rich to do it. I'm saying "no you don't" need to tax the rich/raise taxes/whatever to do so.

Why? Because injecting that money, even if it goes to the poor instead of merely for "infrastructure", pays for itself, thanks to the Multiplier Effect, with economic growth, greater income, and ultimately more tax revenue due to that greater income--just like when you cut taxes. It's a beautiful system, and it works.

[MJZiggy]

DUH!, Ziggy. Of course he's not advocating that. He's a conservative--some would say even more so than I am.

His point was that IF--like you said--you use government spending in some form for the poor, you have to tax the rich to do it. I'm saying "no you don't" need to tax the rich/raise taxes/whatever to do so.

Why? Because injecting that money, even if it goes to the poor instead of merely for "infrastructure", pays for itself, thanks to the Multiplier Effect, with economic growth, greater income, and ultimately more tax revenue due to that greater income--just like when you cut taxes. It's a beautiful system, and it works.

I think we agree with each other but for different reasons. You say spend the money and it will come back, I'm saying lose some useless pork projects and you'll find the money through greater government efficiency (oxymoron?). This is my problem with lobbyists and special interests. Our lawmakers need to use common sense when making decisions, not feel bound by people who gave them money.

[Freak Out]

Iraqi PM assures Iran on security

Iraq will not allow its territory to be used to attack Iran, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said during a visit to Tehran.

Mr Maliki met the foreign minister and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who pledged to help with Iraq's security.

The role of the US in Iraq is high on the agenda, with Tehran concerned about a treaty under discussion on the terms of the US military's future in Iraq.

Iran's alleged backing for militants in Iraq was also expected to be discussed.

'Peace and security'

"We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and neighbours," Iranian state-run media quoted Mr Maliki as saying after late-night talks with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

In his talks with Mr Ahmadinejad, Iranian media quoted Mr Maliki as saying: "A stable Iraq will be a benefit to the security of the region and the world."

Mr Ahmadinejad told Mr Maliki: "Iraq's neighbours have more responsibility to help the country to establish peace and security."

Without referring directly to the US-Iraqi deal, Mr Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying: "Iraq must reach a certain level of stability so that its enemies are not able to impose their influence."

A statement from Mr Maliki's office in Baghdad said economic and trade issues were high on the agenda.

"Iraq is looking forward to Iranian companies taking part in developing its infrastructure," Mr Maliki is quoted as saying.

The BBC's John Leyne, in Tehran, says Iran has made no secret of its opposition to the current negotiations going on between Iraq and the US, which are aimed at regulating the presence of US forces in the country after their UN mandate expires at the end of 2008.

The US-Iraqi talks, which are seeking to reach agreement by the end of July, have run into problems over issues related to Iraqi sovereignty.

The Iraqi prime minister was also expected to raise allegations of Iranian support for Shia militants in Iraq.

Shia militiamen fought bitter battles with US and Iraqi government forces between March and May.

Mr Maliki is on his third visit to Iran since taking office in June 2005.

Government sources say Iraqi security officials with the delegation will be showing the Iranians evidence of their alleged support for the militias, the BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad reports.

Iran has always denied any involvement, but officials say Mr Maliki will once again urge Tehran to support the Baghdad government and stop secretly backing militias.

[Harlan Huckleby]

are you laughing at the article you posted, some previous clowns, or just a luntatic outburst? I guess B but I don't want to read a thread about economics.

Iraqi PM assures Iran on security

Iraq will not allow its territory to be used to attack Iran, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said during a visit to Tehran.

Mr Maliki met the foreign minister and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who pledged to help with Iraq's security.

This sounds like a good deal. Maybe recent success in Basra and elsewhere is because Iran is already backing off trouble making.

[bobblehead]

DUH!, Ziggy. Of course he's not advocating that. He's a conservative--some would say even more so than I am.

His point was that IF--like you said--you use government spending in some form for the poor, you have to tax the rich to do it. I'm saying "no you don't" need to tax the rich/raise taxes/whatever to do so.

Why? Because injecting that money, even if it goes to the poor instead of merely for "infrastructure", pays for itself, thanks to the Multiplier Effect, with economic growth, greater income, and ultimately more tax revenue due to that greater income--just like when you cut taxes. It's a beautiful system, and it works.

I think we agree with each other but for different reasons. You say spend the money and it will come back, I'm saying lose some useless pork projects and you'll find the money through greater government efficiency (oxymoron?). This is my problem with lobbyists and special interests. Our lawmakers need to use common sense when making decisions, not feel bound by people who gave them money.

As much as I hate pork spending ziggy, its really a very small % of the gov't budget. Now, things like the farm bill that was a special interests delight and a monster spending bill is a real issue. The lawmakers we keep electing are slaves to the lobbyists, thats just the way it is, and unless voters wise up, actually pay attention instead of saying "hey, I know that name" and pulling the lever it isn't going to change.

Our gov't puts in a program, lets it get bloated and wasteful then cuts the benefit. Just last night I heard John McCain say that seniors who can afford their own prescription drugs should be expected to pay for them....I never heard that in the original plan. So now the little old lady who worked hard and saved money until she was 65 so she could enjoy retirement is going to have to pay for drugs that the person who pissed their money away will get for free....yea, thats moral and just.

[MJZiggy]

Actually, the farm bill was the particular pork chop I had in mind...

And I wouldn't worry too much about that prescription clause. The seniors will completely eviscerate him on it until he drops it and if he doesn't he will not be elected. They are a powerful and ornery bunch.

[bobblehead]

Actually, the farm bill was the particular pork chop I had in mind...

And I wouldn't worry too much about that prescription clause. The seniors will completely eviscerate him on it until he drops it and if he doesn't he will not be elected. They are a powerful and ornery bunch.

Very true on the seniors point. I guess I think of pork as earmarks that are kind of hidden in there, but yes the farm bill is indeed a huge fat pork chop. We have a few of those. I would even say if we aren't going to let the oil companies explore and drill for oil (we should though) we could eliminate their tax breaks to do so.

We are reaching a tipping point though where a huge amount of the budget is gov't health programs (19%), SS(21%), defense(21%), Interest on debt(9%), and benefits for retired federal employees and veterans(6%).

These are all locked in costs, there isn't that much room to cut in other areas really. Moreover these costs are going to get worse as a %, unless the gov't cuts into them. Basically right now 76% of the budget can't be touched without breaking promises or sacrificing defense. I view this as not so good. I view this as saying we can't add more federal programs like national healthcare. I view this as we need to make some fundamental changes.

Just in case anyone wants a source: http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-07tax2.htm

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm not sure, Ziggy, why you think "seniors" are so dead set against the farm bill. A lot of those seniors actually are retired farmers or first generation off the farm.

In any case, "pork" projects (tell me you aren't taking "pork" literally, Ziggy) and the farm bill in particular, just like liberal social spending, just like infrastructure spending, just like defense spending, just like salaries of government bureaucrats, just like ANY government spending in this country are subject to the beauty of the Multiplier, and thus, serve as stimulus for economic growth in a geometric way.

On to the Iraq/Iran article, the goodness or badness of this whole situation depends on the trustworthiness of the America-installed Iraqi government and of al Maliki in particular. Undoubtedly the Bush-hating left will characterize these talks as our Iraqi surrogates selling us out to the Iranian enemy. It could just as well be construed as al Maliki extracting a promise from Iran of not stirring up anti-government trouble in Iraq. Time will tell how things turn out, but I'm fairly confident that if Iran needs to be attacked, we either won't need to use Iraq as a staging area or else, we will go ahead and use it anyway no matter what al Maliki pledges to Iran.

The other side of the coin--Iran pledging to stop stirring up trouble in Iraq--probably won't happen either, but getting them to say they will stop at least can't hurt.