Is Newt A Viable Candidate?

[jem]

finally... a very intelligent point about spending and the economy... made on another thread about europe..

GDP is the wrong measure...

Quote from Ed Breen:

No, printing press wont work it would destroy the Euro and the common area economies just the same. It is the same as default but worse. I said the GDP was a lousy growth metric and I see you don't understand that becuase you assume you can raise GDP through monetary inflation and demand stimulus. You can do that with nominal GDP but you don't really grow and you destroy your continuing access to credit just the same as if you default. With no new money coming in and simply printing of Euro's to make common area sovereign loans you would end up with a destroyed (Hyperinflated Currency), which would destroy common area fixed asset values.

The problem with using GDP as a growth metric is that it is actually a spending metric. The only part of GDP that is related to real growth is the 'investment' componant. The consumption componant is not a growth measure. The government spending componant is not a growth measure. Using debt or monetary inflation to increase consumption and government spending at the expense of investment is the opposite of growth.

The reason that Europe has a growth proplem is because the ration of the 'investment componant' to GDP, Investment/GDP, has been declining for 50 years. Compare the investment/GDP in Germany with the investment/GDP of Italy over the past 50 years and you will see how Italy went flat. Consider that the investment/GDP ratio in China today is about 45%....in the U.S. it is about 15%....in the 1950's the U.S. investment/GDP used to be about 55%.

Europe does not need to reduce its debt/Nominal GDP....it needs to increase its Investment/GDP.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from jem:

That is a possible explanation.
But you do realize that we are looking at supply demand curves at at some point if you tax to high you stifle you economy.

If you are in a high tax area of the curve as you reduce taxes more people choose to work and invest and revenues go up. On the flip side if you are in a very low tax or zero part of the curve, taxes can increase revenue.

We are looking at dynamic systems. And now we are looking at dynamic global systems. Where capital goes where returns vs risk look best.

Jem, I never thought I'd say this about you, but I am impressed. You've come a long way buddy.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from jem:

1. No tax is better than taxes which give the govt and extra bullet..
but I realize arguing for no taxes is not a winner.

Which is why an intelligent flat tax would be so good.
Less rules, less expense, less time consumed.
Lobbying could not be written off.
(It would be less effective and should not be allowed anyway)

2. taxes and spending should be cut.
At one point our country did not have an income tax... we still had a great country. Spending is the problem. Spending is forcing you to say... maybe we should raise taxes....

Well why the fuck should we raise taxes, when we could lower spending.

Why the hell should govt be doing 3/4 of the shit they do.
When the Irish got here they started the knight of columbus to take of themselves.
Kennedy said ask not what your country can do for you.

I agree in helping the truly needy but lets start phasing out spending on everything.. go back to serious means testing and make every able bodied person getting handouts from the govt or a salary take 5 % less a year for each of the next 10 years and cut retirment benefits 30%.

The govt is a monster and must be stopped.

do you know how many people around me make 6 figure working for homeland security... its insane. Family members who used to work in other real jobs... now all do govt consulting or contracting.

ViaSat near my home employs dozens and dozens of friends.
Others work for the Navy... others consult with the CIA as far as I can tell.

And all these people are making great money...
cops and firman in 800000 dollar homes?

Is that right? do we really think our private sector and supporting that kind of spending.

its fricken nuts... I have no idea how we can build 100 million dollar planes... give out 2000 a month to the unemployed... pay for section 8 housing... throw all the black guys in their 20s in jail for dealing drugs, fight 3 wars... building drones... fire million dollar missles.. pay teachers cops on fireman and govt contracts 6 figures..

do you know how much school principles make.

lets stop this fricken insanity. School principles do not need to make 150000 dollars a year.

In my opinion he is rich... he can do whatever the hell he wants to do with the rest of his life and make six figures a year.

Is that right. Is that sustainable.

Should I have to pay more for that shit?
Really -- who are the people who calling for more spending and taxes... You are stealing from me and your causes are not worthy.
As Roger Daltrey said in "Who Are You"

I really want to know...


I just made myself pissed. I need to do something about this.

This is so right. I am old enough that I can remember when government work paid less than the private sector. Government workers at every level used to understand that they were spending the public's money and therefore had an obligation to be frugal.

Now they have a breathtaking sense of entitlement. Every government bubildign has to lok like something GS would build. They have to have ridiculous offsite conferences at huge expense, and for what? To discuss the best way to shuffle paper, harrass private businesses or file discrimination complaints?

We have a long way to go before I even want to hear talk of raising taxes. Perry's problem was not forgetting the thrid department he would eliminate. It was only having three to remember. You could cut Education, Labor, HUD, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, just to start, and most people wouldn't notice the difference.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

...We have a long way to go before I even want to hear talk of raising taxes. Perry's problem was not forgetting the thrid department he would eliminate. It was only having three to remember. You could cut Education, Labor, HUD, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, just to start, and most people wouldn't notice the difference.

Absolutely GD right!

 

[maxpi]

I do not trust that f$%king Newt Gingrich... He was a big name in the "Republican Revolution" of the 90's. They used the "Family Values" [it's about the children of course] slogan to change the tax regulations such that 40+ million households paid no income tax at all and many received rebates.. All those people that don't have to pay for the government certainly have no incentive to limit government, now do they?

 

[jem]

I know that my principal is my pal not principle.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from maxpi:

I do not trust that f$%king Newt Gingrich... He was a big name in the "Republican Revolution" of the 90's. They used the "Family Values" [it's about the children of course] slogan to change the tax regulations such that 40+ million households paid no income tax at all and many received rebates.. All those people that don't have to pay for the government certainly have no incentive to limit government, now do they?

So, just how much more tax should a person earning say 14,000 a year pay. They already pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than say someone making a few million in unearned income, so just how much more tax would you like them to pay? Or should they solve their high tax problem by going out and getting a job that pays a couple million, like the rest of us?

By the way there is a error in your last sentence. Everyone pays for government. No one is exempt from that (with the possible exception of the incarcerated who never purchase anything at the prison commissary). Have you ever heard of inflation?

I think I've just hit on a fool proof way of legally avoiding taxes. Get yourself incarcerated!