Jon Huntsman (and the like): can they ever win

[SMOGZINN]

Nope. You can't measure that in a vacuum. If the other party is truly bent on doing stupid things, then obviously any form of compromise is a bad thing, and "my way or the highway" is not a bad thing. If, however, there are things when you can agree on the goals and working together helps achieve them, then "my way or the highway" is not the right approach. With obummer in office, clearly both sides have taken the "my way or the highway" approach, and whether you think it's appropriate depends on your political perspective.

The "my way or the highway" attitude always comes from one side thinking the other is being unreasonable. No one ever goes, 'You know, those guys have a point, and are being quite reasonable about all this, but I'm not going to work with them anyway!'

It is always wrong. You can't work a government if people are not willing to compromise. You must find common ground. We must try to see the world from the other side's viewpoint and understand why he wants to do things the way he does. This way we can find a way to work together.

Contrary to way some of the extreme rhetoric states, neither side is actually insane or stupid. They are both just looking at the same things from different viewpoints.

 

[dank69]

Nope. You can't measure that in a vacuum. If the other party is truly bent on doing stupid things, then obviously any form of compromise is a bad thing, and "my way or the highway" is not a bad thing. ...

Bwahahaha!

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't believe it's debatable that tax cuts grow the economy enough to pay for themselves. They don't. The most optimistic estimates seem to be that they can pay for about 10-20% of their 'cost' at most. There could be certain levels and types of taxation that could be so onerous as to be counterproductive, but I'm not aware of any meaningful ones that exist in America today.

What is funny (or sad, depending on how you look at it) is that obama's long term budgeting is more fiscally responsible than anything I've seen from a republican, if deficit control is your goal. Sure the republicans claim lower deficits in the future, but they do so with magic asterisks or crazy assumptions.

I honestly believe we should probably be running larger deficits right now, but I do wish conservatives would engage in the fiscal debate more honestly. You really want to balance the budget? Let's see it and talk about it with no magic asterisks.

I see you've put your ideological blinders on again Sure, it's the republicans that to engage in the fiscal debate "more honestly", and sure obummer's plans are "fiscally responsible". Of course. No need to debate that one, you've got your view, I have mine, and neither is going to change.

The reality is that nobody really actually believes in a balanced budget. They all pay lip service to it, they all pretend to want to achieve it, but nobody on either side actually wants to. And the truth is the public doesn't want them to, or we wouldn't punish those who don't promise to spend on everything.

 

[fskimospy]

I see you've put your ideological blinders on again Sure, it's the republicans that to engage in the fiscal debate "more honestly", and sure obummer's plans are "fiscally responsible". Of course. No need to debate that one, you've got your view, I have mine, and neither is going to change.

Don't take my word for it, go read nonpartisan analysis of Paul Ryan's budget and nonpartisan analysis of Obama's budget plans.

Paul Ryan's budget makes a number of assumptions that are simply indefensible in a document that is trying to lay out a fiscal plan. For example, his plan assumed a reduction of the unemployment rate to 2.8% in 2028. That is a laughable number. When informed of it, they simply scrubbed the number away and kept all other outputs the same. That's called grade A bullshit. It also says that despite massively cutting taxes we will end up with $600 billion more in revenue than we would under our current baseline. That's called grade AAA bullshit.

I'm not aware of any such magic asterisks in Obama's plan. If there are some, I'm open to hearing about it.

The reality is that nobody really actually believes in a balanced budget. They all pay lip service to it, they all pretend to want to achieve it, but nobody on either side actually wants to. And the truth is the public doesn't want them to, or we wouldn't punish those who don't promise to spend on everything.

Well a balanced budget is never really necessary, just one where the deficit is a significantly smaller % of GDP than our growth rate. It's okay to not actually believe in a balanced budget, I simply wish conservatives would stop pretending they do. The reason why they complain about deficits isn't because they care about deficits, it's because they want to shrink government. That's why they don't care about 'paying for' tax cuts too. The deficit was never the problem, it's simply a means to an end.

 

[PokerGuy]

Don't take my word for it, go read nonpartisan analysis of Paul Ryan's budget and nonpartisan analysis of Obama's budget plans.

Nonpartisan. lol. Does that even exist anymore?

Paul Ryan's budget makes a number of assumptions that are simply indefensible in a document that is trying to lay out a fiscal plan. For example, his plan assumed a reduction of the unemployment rate to 2.8% in 2028. That is a laughable number. When informed of it, they simply scrubbed the number away and kept all other outputs the same. That's called grade A bullsh*t.

If true, I would agree that's complete BS. Notice I said "if true", because I take that interpretation of it with a grain of salt, because everyone's looking at the budgets and plans with political agenda in mind.

It also says that despite massively cutting taxes we will end up with $600 billion more in revenue than we would under our current baseline. That's called grade AAA bullsh*t.

Again, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible. If you cut corporate taxes and end up with more companies locating in the US, it would increase revenue. Same thing with creating a tax break for companies that repatriate funds held overseas -- you'd be cutting taxes, but yet end up with lots more revenue as money funnels back into the country.

Well a balanced budget is never really necessary, just one where the deficit is a significantly smaller % of GDP than our growth rate. It's okay to not actually believe in a balanced budget, I simply wish conservatives would stop pretending they do.

Conservatives are the only ones pretending they do? Interesting. Again, set down the blinders, then rationally ask yourself if any politicians come out and say "we don't care about deficits, just spend away!". The only time you hear "deficits don't matter" is when that party is in power and spending wildly. Then, when the other party is in power, deficits are critical. Again, nobody actually believes in prudent spending, and I wish all of them would stop pretending to so we could actually make informed choices.

The reason why they complain about deficits isn't because they care about deficits, it's because they want to shrink government. That's why they don't care about 'paying for' tax cuts too. The deficit was never the problem, it's simply a means to an end.

Shrinking government is an excellent goal we should all share. If reducing our deficits and reducing spending is a tool in the toolbox to accomplish it, then we should use it, it's a win-win. We depend less on borrowing money from (often hostile) foreign countries, and we have more freedom.

 

[theeedude]

Pelosi says she stands for the little people and the environment then takes limos and private jets everywhere. Let us all go a head and not use politicians as the basis for our definitions.

Fiscal conservatism IS trickle down.
Fiscal conservatism is cutting spending and income taxes so that more money stays in the hands of "job creators," and claiming that it will result in a better economy. That is trickle down, just by different name.

 

[PokerGuy]

Fiscal conservatism IS trickle down.

It is? Everyone except for you must have missed that memo! You've come up with the definitive definition... and one that doesn't actually agree with anyone elses either. Good thinking

Fiscal conservatism is cutting spending and income taxes so that more money stays in the hands of "job creators," and claiming that it will result in a better economy. That is trickle down, just by different name.

lol, you create your own fictional definition, then argue against it. Brilliant!

 

[dank69]

...

Again, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible. If you cut corporate taxes and end up with more companies locating in the US, it would increase revenue. Same thing with creating a tax break for companies that repatriate funds held overseas -- you'd be cutting taxes, but yet end up with lots more revenue as money funnels back into the country.

...

So you honestly believe that taxes are one of the primary reasons that companies are located elsewhere?

 

[dank69]

It is? Everyone except for you must have missed that memo! You've come up with the definitive definition... and one that doesn't actually agree with anyone elses either. Good thinking



lol, you create your own fictional definition, then argue against it. Brilliant!

So fiscal conservatism isn't about cutting spending and taxes?

 

[fskimospy]

Nonpartisan. lol. Does that even exist anymore?

It does!

If true, I would agree that's complete BS. Notice I said "if true", because I take that interpretation of it with a grain of salt, because everyone's looking at the budgets and plans with political agenda in mind.

It was definitely true. The numbers came from an analysis of his plan by the Heritage Foundation that Ryan himself touted. All while saying that unlike other budgets his did not rely on gimmicks, which was really the icing on the cake. Remember, this budget is the basis for pretty much every Republican presidential candidate's fiscal plan, and it's based on total bullshit. That's what I'm talking about when I say they aren't approaching this debate honestly.

Again, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible. If you cut corporate taxes and end up with more companies locating in the US, it would increase revenue. Same thing with creating a tax break for companies that repatriate funds held overseas -- you'd be cutting taxes, but yet end up with lots more revenue as money funnels back into the country.

Because all empirical evidence (as well as common sense) shows that tax cuts decrease revenues. There could be an extreme outlier there where tax cuts would increase revenue such as if we went from 100% tax on something to a 90% tax or whatever, but those situations don't exist in the US.
[/quote]

Conservatives are the only ones pretending they do? Interesting. Again, set down the blinders, then rationally ask yourself if any politicians come out and say "we don't care about deficits, just spend away!". The only time you hear "deficits don't matter" is when that party is in power and spending wildly. Then, when the other party is in power, deficits are critical. Again, nobody actually believes in prudent spending, and I wish all of them would stop pretending to so we could actually make informed choices.

While I would agree that both parties pay lip service to balanced budgets (as voters like balanced budgets), we both know it is a much larger part of conservative political ideology and messaging than liberal ideology and messaging.

Shrinking government is an excellent goal we should all share. If reducing our deficits and reducing spending is a tool in the toolbox to accomplish it, then we should use it, it's a win-win. We depend less on borrowing money from (often hostile) foreign countries, and we have more freedom.

Nah. Shrinking government isn't an intrinsically good thing so it would be foolish for people to share such a goal. More government is good sometimes and bad other times, which is exactly the thing that many conservatives don't get.

It's like how in good economic times conservatives argue for lower government spending because government spending is crowding out private investment. (this is often true!) Then in bad economic times conservatives argue for lower government spending because we can't afford it. (this is a very bad idea!) You'll note that regardless of the situation their response is always "less spending", which is the sign that they are approaching the argument from an ideological perspective, and not a logical one.

 

[PokerGuy]

So you honestly believe that taxes are one of the primary reasons that companies are located elsewhere?

Uh, you might want to take a peek at some reputable news source at some point. In case you missed it, many companies -- especailly really big ones are using tactics like inversions and headquartering overseas to reduce the tax burden. If the tax regs were more in line with other countries, there would be less of an incentive to do so.

Taxes are a very important part of the financial equation for companies. Certainly not the only thing, but it is important.

 

[dank69]

Uh, you might want to take a peek at some reputable news source at some point. In case you missed it, many companies -- especailly really big ones are using tactics like inversions and headquartering overseas to reduce the tax burden. If the tax regs were more in line with other countries, there would be less of an incentive to do so.

Taxes are a very important part of the financial equation for companies. Certainly not the only thing, but it is important.

Yes I see lots of companies that pay zero federal tax (and even receive tax credits!) complaining about how bad federal taxes are. I don't really believe that bullshit though. You are saying that you do believe them? You think they are really offshoring jobs because of taxes and not labor costs?

 

[PokerGuy]

It does!

Not likely.

It was definitely true. The numbers came from an analysis of his plan by the Heritage Foundation that Ryan himself touted. All while saying that unlike other budgets his did not rely on gimmicks, which was really the icing on the cake. Remember, this budget is the basis for pretty much every Republican presidential candidate's fiscal plan, and it's based on total bullshit. That's what I'm talking about when I say they aren't approaching this debate honestly.

Even if true, it simply underscores the main problem: that the voters are not interested in hearing anyone tell the truth. They want to hear a plan that shows how they can get all the services they like, while at the same time not having to pay for them. Politicians do a dance to pretend they have a plan to get us there, but what we should actually be doing is making decisions about what we do - and don't - want to pay for. When a politician tries to do that, they get crushed by the voters. So, you get what we have now. Lots of pretending, lots of grandstanding, lots of lip service, but no actual steps towards a sound fiscal approach.

While I would agree that both parties pay lip service to balanced budgets (as voters like balanced budgets), we both know it is a much larger part of conservative political ideology and messaging than liberal ideology and messaging.

Of course it's not a big part of liberal ideology and messaging -- you don't need to convince people to have you spend money on stuff, that's the natural order of things. Spending always increases. It's much harder to convince people to be prudent than it is to let it roll. On an individual scale, this is exactly why such a huge percentage of people don't save enough for retirement: they don't see a sufficient reason to be fiscally prudent, they prefer spending now and dealing with the problems later.

Nah. Shrinking government isn't an intrinsically good thing so it would be foolish for people to share such a goal.

It's not always a good thing, but I view it the way the SCOTUS tends to view laws that can curtail freedom of speech. Sure, they are needed for our society to function, and there are definitely times when such curtailments make sense. However, you have to apply a high threshold: is there a better way to achieve the goals (narrower scope) etc.

Apply similar logic with government. When we want government to do something, we need to ask if there's a better way to achieve it, can it happen outside of government? If there is no other way to achieve the desired result, then you might consider increasing the scope of government to do something.

More government is good sometimes and bad other times, which is exactly the thing that many conservatives don't get.

Sure, just like restrictions on freedom of speech can be good ("fire" in a theater example), or bad. We have to evaluate it with the same healthy dose of skepticism. The default position should be "it's bad unless you can show a clear need for it with no alternatives that are palatable".

It's like how in good economic times conservatives argue for lower government spending because government spending is crowding out private investment. (this is often true!) Then in bad economic times conservatives argue for lower government spending because we can't afford it. (this is a very bad idea!) You'll note that regardless of the situation their response is always "less spending", which is the sign that they are approaching the argument from an ideological perspective, and not a logical one.

Conversely, in good times liberals say we can afford it and spend more, while in bad times they argue that curtailing spending would make things worse so we should spend more. Regardless of the situation, the answer is always "spend more" and "grow government". In your own words, that's the sign that they are approaching it from an ideological perspective instead of a logical one. It's the other side of the exact same coin, but some are too ideologically blinded to recognize it.

 

[Mxylplyx]

If true, I would agree that's complete BS. Notice I said "if true", because I take that interpretation of it with a grain of salt, because everyone's looking at the budgets and plans with political agenda in mind.

You know, one things conservatives need to learn is that not everything is subject to interpretation. "Facts" do not have two sides, yet every time you are presented with them, you simply brush them off as opinion.

Again, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible. If you cut corporate taxes and end up with more companies locating in the US, it would increase revenue. Same thing with creating a tax break for companies that repatriate funds held overseas -- you'd be cutting taxes, but yet end up with lots more revenue as money funnels back into the country.

How many times does the conservative tax cut myth have to fail before you simply abandon it as a policy position? Tax Cuts do not offset themselves with increased revenue. They simply do not, period, end of story, regardless of how much you want it to be true. It's a FACT. See above.

Also, a repatriation holiday is not some new policy prescription. We did one back in 2004, and the 300+ billion that was brought back was used mostly to pay dividends, and share buybacks. It had no discernible benefit to the economy, and it's argued it cost the treasury money. I'm sure if we just do the same thing again we can expect a different result, right?

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes I see lots of companies that pay zero federal tax (and even receive tax credits!) complaining about how bad federal taxes are. I don't really believe that bullsh*t though. You are saying that you do believe them? You think they are really offshoring jobs because of taxes and not labor costs?

You are free to believe what you like, but the US has the one of the highest -- or even the highest -- corporate tax rates of any developed country in the world. Don't take my word for it: facts. Whether you look at statutory rates or effective rates, notwithstanding particular examples of big companies paying very little in taxes, the reality is that the US rate is the highest or one of the highest in the developed world.

 

[dank69]

You are free to believe what you like, but the US has the one of the highest -- or even the highest -- corporate tax rates of any developed country in the world. Don't take my word for it: facts. Whether you look at statutory rates or effective rates, notwithstanding particular examples of big companies paying very little in taxes, the reality is that the US rate is the highest or one of the highest in the developed world.

Did you even read your link? The reason it received a "mostly true" rating is because:

The reason for the "mostly" qualifier is that companies aren’t actually taxed at the statutory rate.

 

[PokerGuy]

You know, one things conservatives need to learn is that not everything is subject to interpretation. "Facts" do not have two sides, yet every time you are presented with them, you simply brush them off as opinion.

What you apparently need to learn is that while facts are facts, how those facts are interpreted and what they actually mean is most certainly open to interpretation. Outside of fields like math, physics and such, very few facts stand alone without context or interpretation. You have to examine the facts, but you must also look at the context and interpretation to determine their value and validity.

How many times does the conservative tax cut myth have to fail before you simply abandon it as a policy position? Tax Cuts do not offset themselves with increased revenue. They simply do not, period, end of story, regardless of how much you want it to be true. It's a FACT. See above.

Interesting that you think you can make such a determination of fact without even considering what the tax cut might entail and how it is implemented. Obvious fail. Since these things are not done in a vacuum, we can study them to try and figure out the impact in hindsight, but it's more like weather forecasting than math. You're talking about probabilities and possibilities, not ironclad givens.

Also, a repatriation holiday is not some new policy prescription. We did one back in 2004, and the 300+ billion that was brought back was used mostly to pay dividends, and share buybacks. It had no discernible benefit to the economy

This is a pretty good article with good analysis on it. The effects from it are far from cut and dried, and you're also making a (bad) assumption that a repatriation 'break' would take the same form and be structured the same. That simply isn't known, so the actual impact of such a repatriation can not be known yet either.

I'm sure if we just do the same thing again we can expect a different result, right?

1) who said do the same, 2) there are a million factors that play into it that are not "the same" now as they were in 2004. I'm not arguing for it or against it, just saying we can't assume anything about it until we know the specifics of what is being proposed.

 

[PokerGuy]

Did you even read your link? The reason it received a "mostly true" rating is because:

Yes, read the whole article. The "mostly true" rating is because there are differing estimates as to what the effective rate actually is, but the general consensus is that the US has one of the highest (or the highest) corporate rates.

 

[dank69]

Yes, read the whole article. The "mostly true" rating is because there are differing estimates as to what the effective rate actually is, but the general consensus is that the US has one of the highest (or the highest) corporate rates.

Yes, we have one of the highest rates which means exactly nothing if nobody pays that rate in practice, now does it?

 

[dank69]

What you apparently need to learn is that while facts are facts, how those facts are interpreted and what they actually mean is most certainly open to interpretation. Outside of fields like math, physics and such, very few facts stand alone without context or interpretation. You have to examine the facts, but you must also look at the context and interpretation to determine their value and validity.

...

Good thing we are talking about math then, right?

 

[fskimospy]

You are free to believe what you like, but the US has the one of the highest -- or even the highest -- corporate tax rates of any developed country in the world. Don't take my word for it: facts. Whether you look at statutory rates or effective rates, notwithstanding particular examples of big companies paying very little in taxes, the reality is that the US rate is the highest or one of the highest in the developed world.

The US has an effective corporate tax rate that is similar to the OECD average and we actually collect a smaller percentage of GDP from it than the OECD average according to the CRS:

A particular aspect of the corporate tax system that receives substantial attention is the 35% statutory corporate tax rate. Although the United States has the world’s highest statutory corporate tax rate, the U.S. effective corporate tax rate is similar to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average. Further, the United States collects less in corporate tax revenue relative to Gross Domestic Production (GDP) (2.3% in 2011) than the average of other OECD countries (3.0% in 2011).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42726.pdf

 

[nixium]

The "my way or the highway" attitude always comes from one side thinking the other is being unreasonable. No one ever goes, 'You know, those guys have a point, and are being quite reasonable about all this, but I'm not going to work with them anyway!'

It is always wrong. You can't work a government if people are not willing to compromise. You must find common ground. We must try to see the world from the other side's viewpoint and understand why he wants to do things the way he does. This way we can find a way to work together.

Contrary to way some of the extreme rhetoric states, neither side is actually insane or stupid. They are both just looking at the same things from different viewpoints.

Exactly, At this point, government is completely dysfunctional because of the my-way-or-the-highway approach.

Maybe a multi party system would make this gridlock better (as long as the new party aren't just agents of one of the parties in power) that way gridlock won't happen and it's also hard for a single party to easily dominate.

What would it take to introduce multiple political parties? A constitutional amendment?

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes, we have one of the highest rates which means exactly nothing if nobody pays that rate in practice, now does it?

That's not what it says. We DO pay high rates in practice. Just how high depends on what estimates you want to look at since there's no one "official" number. Sigh, this is not really that hard to comprehend.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly, At this point, government is completely dysfunctional because of the my-way-or-the-highway approach.

Maybe a multi party system would make this gridlock better (as long as the new party aren't just agents of one of the parties in power) that way gridlock won't happen and it's also hard for a single party to easily dominate.

What would it take to introduce multiple political parties? A constitutional amendment?

The good news is that it would not take a constitutional amendment, just a switch to instant runoff voting by all states for all offices. That's still a mighty high hurdle though.

 

[PokerGuy]

The US has an effective corporate tax rate that is similar to the OECD average and we actually collect a smaller percentage of GDP from it than the OECD average according to the CRS:



https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42726.pdf

I don't see how the percentage of GDP collected is really material. Remember, we're talking about this in context of making it more or less attractive for a company to be based on the US or elsewhere. From that perspective, what percentage of GDP is not relevant. As a government policy discussion , it's relevant, but not from the decision making perspective for the company.

Also, keep in mind that in other developed countries the effective tax rates cover health insurance (at least to some extent), while in the US it does not. So as an overall measure, the US is very "expensive" from a corporate tax perspective. Obviously there are plenty of other factors, but that's one of them.