Sharron Angle's Economic Plan

[The Rabbi]

flagrantly curtailing the size and expenditure of government, to include laying off public sector employees will cause a recession in itself. this will hurt the private job market through higher unemployment affecting consumer demand compounded with lower demand from public-private tenders.

Possibly in the short term. In the long term it will increase productivity as gov't will no longer be sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something worthwhile.
It will certainly pinch the executives at SEIU. Maybe you could start a fund for their retirement or something.

You seem immune to the realization that altho government may take from the private sector they give 100% back. Meaning a net zero equation. No harm, no foul.

In fact government goes a step or 12 further in creating a money supply in the first place and then expanding it to create all growth. ALL growth.

How could you possibly be a more useless ingrate? Your wealth is all the direct result of government and social subsidy and support! Entirely, ALL of it.

Without the giant teat of government/society supporting you your entire life you would have been able at best to scratch out a meager subsistence living probably dying by age 30 and suffering deplorable health. Your best and most enduring friend would have been Mal Nutrition. Tho I expect it would have been a love/hate affair.

If what you truly long for is to live entirely by your own means, then move away, suffer the torturous existence that you so long for and leave the rest of us to wallow in our sanity.

Has the prospect of Democratic loss of control unhinged you completely? You may need to consult your doctor.

 

[antagon]

I'm still waiting to hear how her plan will eliminate private sector jobs, as claimed.

flagrantly curtailing the size and expenditure of government, to include laying off public sector employees will cause a recession in itself. this will hurt the private job market through higher unemployment affecting consumer demand compounded with lower demand from public-private tenders.

Possibly in the short term. In the long term it will increase productivity as gov't will no longer be sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something worthwhile.
It will certainly pinch the executives at SEIU. Maybe you could start a fund for their retirement or something.

the issue in the logic behind your 'sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something' is that the US tax system coerces investment by exempting it from tax. if the private sector is really out to invest, then they will. if they aren't, i argue that they will be hoarding that cash, which does not serve the purpose of printing it up in the first place. this is why the government has a complicated system through which to tax specific economic activity like hoarding among businesses and higher-earners.

if you are going to levy tax, and it is a necessary evil, then it should be targeted in the interest of the economy. i argue that it is and your logic does not survive that fact.

 

[Samson]

flagrantly curtailing the size and expenditure of government, to include laying off public sector employees will cause a recession in itself. this will hurt the private job market through higher unemployment affecting consumer demand compounded with lower demand from public-private tenders.

Possibly in the short term. In the long term it will increase productivity as gov't will no longer be sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something worthwhile.
It will certainly pinch the executives at SEIU. Maybe you could start a fund for their retirement or something.

the issue in the logic behind your 'sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something' is that the US tax system coerces investment by exempting it from tax. if the private sector is really out to invest, then they will. if they aren't, i argue that they will be hoarding that cash, which does not serve the purpose of printing it up in the first place. this is why the government has a complicated system through which to tax specific economic activity like hoarding among businesses and higher-earners.

if you are going to levy tax, and it is a necessary evil, then it should be targeted in the interest of the economy. i argue that it is and your logic does not survive that fact.

PART of what you're saying is dead on: The tax system discourages businesses and individuals from "hoarding" cash (saving?), and encourages debt. To borrow from Aesop, the tax structure encourages grasshoppers, not ants.

However, to ignore the fact that, on the one hand the private sector might want to invest using their savings, but on the other hand they cannot save because they are taxed for saving, is duplicious. "The private sector is really out to invest, then they will," assumes that taxes have not bled the private sector dry.

 

[The Rabbi]

flagrantly curtailing the size and expenditure of government, to include laying off public sector employees will cause a recession in itself. this will hurt the private job market through higher unemployment affecting consumer demand compounded with lower demand from public-private tenders.

Possibly in the short term. In the long term it will increase productivity as gov't will no longer be sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something worthwhile.
It will certainly pinch the executives at SEIU. Maybe you could start a fund for their retirement or something.

the issue in the logic behind your 'sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something' is that the US tax system coerces investment by exempting it from tax. if the private sector is really out to invest, then they will. if they aren't, i argue that they will be hoarding that cash, which does not serve the purpose of printing it up in the first place. this is why the government has a complicated system through which to tax specific economic activity like hoarding among businesses and higher-earners.

if you are going to levy tax, and it is a necessary evil, then it should be targeted in the interest of the economy. i argue that it is and your logic does not survive that fact.

Your post is a confused muddle of half truths and misconceptions.
The tax system does not "coerce" anything except payments from people. It does serve to encourage and discourage certain behaviors. The private sector will invest where it perceives a possibility of return commensurate with risk. Taxes negatively affect return. So some investments that would be viable at a lower tax rate will not be viable at a higher one. Investment is what grows the economy (NOT consumer spending, as the Keynesian Obarrahoids believe). So taxes on it are depressing to economic activity.

 

[loosecannon]

Possibly in the short term. In the long term it will increase productivity as gov't will no longer be sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something worthwhile.
It will certainly pinch the executives at SEIU. Maybe you could start a fund for their retirement or something.

You seem immune to the realization that altho government may take from the private sector they give 100% back. Meaning a net zero equation. No harm, no foul.

In fact government goes a step or 12 further in creating a money supply in the first place and then expanding it to create all growth. ALL growth.

How could you possibly be a more useless ingrate? Your wealth is all the direct result of government and social subsidy and support! Entirely, ALL of it.

Without the giant teat of government/society supporting you your entire life you would have been able at best to scratch out a meager subsistence living probably dying by age 30 and suffering deplorable health. Your best and most enduring friend would have been Mal Nutrition. Tho I expect it would have been a love/hate affair.

If what you truly long for is to live entirely by your own means, then move away, suffer the torturous existence that you so long for and leave the rest of us to wallow in our sanity.

Has the prospect of Democratic loss of control unhinged you completely? You may need to consult your doctor.

actually it may have unhinged you, I am not a partisan so I really couldn't give a shit which party wins or loses.

Address the post, if you dare.

 

[The Rabbi]

You seem immune to the realization that altho government may take from the private sector they give 100% back. Meaning a net zero equation. No harm, no foul.

In fact government goes a step or 12 further in creating a money supply in the first place and then expanding it to create all growth. ALL growth.

How could you possibly be a more useless ingrate? Your wealth is all the direct result of government and social subsidy and support! Entirely, ALL of it.

Without the giant teat of government/society supporting you your entire life you would have been able at best to scratch out a meager subsistence living probably dying by age 30 and suffering deplorable health. Your best and most enduring friend would have been Mal Nutrition. Tho I expect it would have been a love/hate affair.

If what you truly long for is to live entirely by your own means, then move away, suffer the torturous existence that you so long for and leave the rest of us to wallow in our sanity.

Has the prospect of Democratic loss of control unhinged you completely? You may need to consult your doctor.

actually it may have unhinged you, I am not a partisan so I really couldn't give a shit which party wins or loses.

Address the post, if you dare.

There was a point??

 

[antagon]

PART of what you're saying is dead on: The tax system discourages businesses and individuals from "hoarding" cash (saving?), and encourages debt. To borrow from Aesop, the tax structure encourages grasshoppers, not ants.

However, to ignore the fact that, on the one hand the private sector might want to invest using their savings, but on the other hand they cannot save because they are taxed for saving, is duplicious. "The private sector is really out to invest, then they will," assumes that taxes have not bled the private sector dry.

this is my presumption. i dont think that taxes have bled the private sector dry. that's a vast overstatement. if shit's dry at the moment by your estimation, i'd attribute it to soured investment and lower demand due to lower income (via unemployment and lower commissions) and concern by savers/investors who prefer to wait until investments are riper before they jump in.

the credit crunch has been valued at around $20 trillion. it would take over a decade for the government to take that much cash in tax. that's about how vast your overstatement is if it is meant to characterize the status quo.

 

[antagon]

the issue in the logic behind your 'sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something' is that the US tax system coerces investment by exempting it from tax. if the private sector is really out to invest, then they will. if they aren't, i argue that they will be hoarding that cash, which does not serve the purpose of printing it up in the first place. this is why the government has a complicated system through which to tax specific economic activity like hoarding among businesses and higher-earners.

if you are going to levy tax, and it is a necessary evil, then it should be targeted in the interest of the economy. i argue that it is and your logic does not survive that fact.

Your post is a confused muddle of half truths and misconceptions.

i think this is an issue with your english competency, rabbi. to wit:

The tax system does not "coerce" anything except payments from people. It does serve to encourage and discourage certain behaviors.

do you know what coercion means?

lets move on. i'm not as into the ad hominems as you are.

The private sector will invest where it perceives a possibility of return commensurate with risk. Taxes negatively affect return. So some investments that would be viable at a lower tax rate will not be viable at a higher one. Investment is what grows the economy (NOT consumer spending, as the Keynesian Obarrahoids believe). So taxes on it are depressing to economic activity.

keynes hasn't posited that demand 'grows' an economy, but he did point out that potential demand is the object of investment, and that lapses in this potential demand, which keynes specified in cash in hand and employment and monetarists summarize as the money supply, are the basis of weak investment.

from a microeconomic perspective, investment without perceiving a return, presumably through consumption of the produce from this investment is bad investment. this is how demand is important in an economy.

commerce is the epicenter of growth in an economy. it is the point where profit is realized. it is the intersection of supply (part of which is investment) and demand.

 

[The Rabbi]

the issue in the logic behind your 'sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something' is that the US tax system coerces investment by exempting it from tax. if the private sector is really out to invest, then they will. if they aren't, i argue that they will be hoarding that cash, which does not serve the purpose of printing it up in the first place. this is why the government has a complicated system through which to tax specific economic activity like hoarding among businesses and higher-earners.

if you are going to levy tax, and it is a necessary evil, then it should be targeted in the interest of the economy. i argue that it is and your logic does not survive that fact.

Your post is a confused muddle of half truths and misconceptions.

i think this is an issue with your english competency, rabbi. to wit:

The tax system does not "coerce" anything except payments from people. It does serve to encourage and discourage certain behaviors.

do you know what coercion means?

lets move on. i'm not as into the ad hominems as you are.

The private sector will invest where it perceives a possibility of return commensurate with risk. Taxes negatively affect return. So some investments that would be viable at a lower tax rate will not be viable at a higher one. Investment is what grows the economy (NOT consumer spending, as the Keynesian Obarrahoids believe). So taxes on it are depressing to economic activity.

keynes hasn't posited that demand 'grows' an economy, but he did point out that potential demand is the object of investment, and that lapses in this potential demand, which keynes specified in cash in hand and employment and monetarists summarize as the money supply, are the basis of weak investment.

from a microeconomic perspective, investment without perceiving a return, presumably through consumption of the produce from this investment is bad investment. this is how demand is important in an economy.

commerce is the epicenter of growth in an economy. it is the point where profit is realized. it is the intersection of supply (part of which is investment) and demand.

Do you jsut cut and paste words out of an econ textbook or Economist article? Because nothing you've written is coherent or comprehensible.
I'd suggest looking up the word "coerce" before you look even more stupid.
Commerce is the epicenter of growth in an economy. Did you actually write that??

 

[antagon]

i can't help you, rabbi, if you can't understand what i've written despite thinking it may have come from a textbook. perhaps your issue is related to an inability to glean meaning from textbooks. it's left you with a consistent misunderstanding of the way things work. not my problem.

it sure does lay its own smokescreen for your dodging what i've pointed out about your shit arguments.

 

[The Rabbi]

i can't help you, rabbi, if you can't understand what i've written despite thinking it may have come from a textbook. perhaps your issue is related to an inability to glean meaning from textbooks. it's left you with a consistent misunderstanding of the way things work. not my problem.

it sure does lay its own smokescreen for your dodging what i've pointed out about your shit arguments.

No, there you go again. I didnt say you got it out of a textbook. That would be a compliment. I wrote you cut out words from a textbook. Not a compliment. I can see you have comprehension issues as well as an inability to write and think clearly.

 

[Norman]

Possibly in the short term. In the long term it will increase productivity as gov't will no longer be sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something worthwhile.
It will certainly pinch the executives at SEIU. Maybe you could start a fund for their retirement or something.

the issue in the logic behind your 'sapping resources the private sector could be using actually to produce something' is that the US tax system coerces investment by exempting it from tax. if the private sector is really out to invest, then they will. if they aren't, i argue that they will be hoarding that cash, which does not serve the purpose of printing it up in the first place. this is why the government has a complicated system through which to tax specific economic activity like hoarding among businesses and higher-earners.

if you are going to levy tax, and it is a necessary evil, then it should be targeted in the interest of the economy. i argue that it is and your logic does not survive that fact.

PART of what you're saying is dead on: The tax system discourages businesses and individuals from "hoarding" cash (saving?), and encourages debt. To borrow from Aesop, the tax structure encourages grasshoppers, not ants.

However, to ignore the fact that, on the one hand the private sector might want to invest using their savings, but on the other hand they cannot save because they are taxed for saving, is duplicious. "The private sector is really out to invest, then they will," assumes that taxes have not bled the private sector dry.

Saving and hoarding are completely different things (at least I consider them so).

Saving means you invest your money for future demand. Hoarding means you stick money in your matress which causes everone else's money to gain in value.

Also artificial demand is useless, and government should not create such thing. If people save for a reason it is good thing. If for example the housing sector is too big, people decide that it is better to save -> the housing sector goes bankrupt and there are lots of savings to invest in new projects -> entrepreneurs invest in new projects that have demand in their opinion (BTW people always have demand, they just don't go to the "saving" mode without any reason. they go to saving mode if they expect something better) -> the new projects are demanded and people spend on them.

You don't want government to make artificial demand for housing so that every guy is deticated to building houses that are not needed. It is better if bankruptcy happens and the resources of the housing sector are put somewhere where there is more need.

People can only save, hoard or spend. Hoarding is most of the time not very useful nor is it a problem currently. Saving is good for new investment, while spending is good for return on the current investment. If current economy is bad (like excess housing in place) people should save and let it die and let someone pick up the savings and spend the savings creating new businesses and jobs.

Anyway people always have demand, just that it is always a risk vs reward thing. Which gives you more stuff? Spending or saving now? The obvious good thing for people and economy is right now to save and have new investments made and let the old stuff die.

Us is trying to tilt the table (with heavy inflation) to spending which doesn't let the economy to restructure, and causes unproductive economy and trade deficits. The table should not be tilted.

 

[loosecannon]

No, there you go again. I didnt say you got it out of a textbook. That would be a compliment. I wrote you cut out words from a textbook.

That's hilarious! Rabbi can't even understand what he said!

LMAO!!

 

[antagon]

i can't help you, rabbi, if you can't understand what i've written despite thinking it may have come from a textbook. perhaps your issue is related to an inability to glean meaning from textbooks. it's left you with a consistent misunderstanding of the way things work. not my problem.

it sure does lay its own smokescreen for your dodging what i've pointed out about your shit arguments.

No, there you go again. I didnt say you got it out of a textbook. That would be a compliment. I wrote you cut out words from a textbook. Not a compliment. I can see you have comprehension issues as well as an inability to write and think clearly.

i've explained how you dont know shit about what you are talking about and that you just offer this kind of bullshit about my comprehension or coherency as a response. speaks for itself.

 

[The Rabbi]

i can't help you, rabbi, if you can't understand what i've written despite thinking it may have come from a textbook. perhaps your issue is related to an inability to glean meaning from textbooks. it's left you with a consistent misunderstanding of the way things work. not my problem.

it sure does lay its own smokescreen for your dodging what i've pointed out about your shit arguments.

No, there you go again. I didnt say you got it out of a textbook. That would be a compliment. I wrote you cut out words from a textbook. Not a compliment. I can see you have comprehension issues as well as an inability to write and think clearly.

i've explained how you dont know shit about what you are talking about and that you just offer this kind of bullshit about my comprehension or coherency as a response. speaks for itself.

Um, there's no such word as "coherency." Kinda confirms what I thought.

 

[loosecannon]

Um, there's no such word as "coherency." Kinda confirms what I thought.

coherency - definition of coherency by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Noun 1. coherency - the state of cohering or sticking together
coherence, cohesion, cohesiveness
connectedness, connection, link - the state of being connected; "the connection between church and state is inescapable"
consistency - logical coherence and accordance with the facts; "a rambling argument that lacked any consistency"
continuity - uninterrupted connection or union
2. coherency - logical and orderly and consistent relation of parts
coherence
comprehensibility, understandability - the quality of comprehensible language or thought
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

 

[antagon]

coherence or coherency (kəʊˈhɪərəns, kəʊˈhɪərəns&#618

— n
1. logical or natural connection or consistency
2. another word for cohesion

far be it from you to inform me about english, foreigner.

Coherency | Define Coherency at Dictionary.com

 

[antagon]

damn, ya beat me to it, cannon.

 

[loosecannon]

This IS fun isn't it?

Rabbi is an idiot's idiot. Coherency thrives in a universe Rabbi hasn't yet discovered!

 

[The Rabbi]

A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
The word you wanted was "coherence." And you sure don't have it.