Comments on: When talk was of investing in public good http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/27/when-talk-was-of-investing-in-public-good/ Fri, 24 May 2013 19:36:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: nlcraul http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/27/when-talk-was-of-investing-in-public-good/comment-page-1/#comment-67496 nlcraul Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:30:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15756#comment-67496 29 november 2012 thursday 8pm "with due respect this is my statement with regards to this fiscal cliff" reuters.com the great debate when talk was of investing in public good by elizabeth pearson | november 28, 2012 11 november 2012 sunday 9am this is what they say: cnbc.com published: saturday, 10 nov 2012 | 11:24 10 november 2012 will the economy boom if washington fixes the 'cliff?' by: justin menza news writer http://www.cnbc.com/id/49762248 economist . . . expect . . . dealing with . . . can re-ignite economic growth. all i can say: "with due respect to all the bright and clever economists in this universe. please don't get me misunderstood. sorry to say . . . really? - is it true?" i wish to invite everybody to my facebook account: thegreatdepression.part2@yahoo.com "i respect all the economists, all the leaders in this world" the simplest and accurate answer to "the fiscal cliff" is for the two distinguished party - the democrats and the republicans to rumble day and night. this is the "only thing" they could do. why? there is no absolute answer to this sorry to say d . . . cliff. again why? the economy moves, in the wrong directions. that's why fixing this d . . . cliff is obsolete. again why? same result - sorry to say d . . . "debt". thanks' please take care and God bless . . . . . . . raul 29 november 2012 thursday 8pm

“with due respect this is my statement
with regards to this fiscal cliff”
reuters.com
the great debate
when talk was of investing in public good
by elizabeth pearson | november 28, 2012

11 november 2012 sunday 9am

this is what they say:

cnbc.com
published: saturday, 10 nov 2012 | 11:24
10 november 2012 will the economy boom
if washington fixes the ‘cliff?’
by: justin menza
news writer
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49762248
economist . . . expect . . . dealing with . . .
can re-ignite economic growth.

all i can say:

“with due respect to all the bright and clever economists
in this universe. please don’t get me misunderstood.
sorry to say . . . really? – is it true?”

i wish to invite everybody to my facebook account:

thegreatdepression.part2@yahoo.com

“i respect all the economists, all the leaders in this world”
the simplest and accurate answer to “the fiscal cliff” is
for the two distinguished party – the democrats and the
republicans to rumble day and night.
this is the “only thing” they could do. why? there is no
absolute answer to this sorry to say d . . . cliff. again why?
the economy moves, in the wrong directions. that’s why
fixing this d . . . cliff is obsolete. again why? same
result – sorry to say d . . . “debt”. thanks’

please take care and God bless . . . . . . . raul

]]> By: benfct http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/27/when-talk-was-of-investing-in-public-good/comment-page-1/#comment-67438 benfct Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:57:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15756#comment-67438 Elizabeth, wake up from your slumbers. You're smarter than this, or you couldn't be at Berkeley. Obviously, income distribution is ever less equal, economic mobility over one's lifetime and between generations is in decline. The voting public is so uninformed, inattentive, and spun this way and that by sound bites that they have no idea of their own economic self-interest. The elected officials are ever more at the beck and call of campaign contributors. Not only is the level of public discourse reaching new lows each year, but the level of scholarship on the Supreme Court is in a parallel downtrend. If you're going to write about something, write about how we can experiment with new ways to actualize democratic self-government, because what we have now shows zero progress from Plato's critique of democracy in the REPUBLIC. Make some useful proposals! Don't write backward looking pulp that does no more than preach to the choir. Get a grip, Elizabeth. Keep your eye on the big target. Elizabeth, wake up from your slumbers. You’re smarter than this, or you couldn’t be at Berkeley.

Obviously, income distribution is ever less equal, economic mobility over one’s lifetime and between generations is in decline. The voting public is so uninformed, inattentive, and spun this way and that by sound bites that they have no idea of their own economic self-interest. The elected officials are ever more at the beck and call of campaign contributors. Not only is the level of public discourse reaching new lows each year, but the level of scholarship on the Supreme Court is in a parallel downtrend.

If you’re going to write about something, write about how we can experiment with new ways to actualize democratic self-government, because what we have now shows zero progress from Plato’s critique of democracy in the REPUBLIC. Make some useful proposals! Don’t write backward looking pulp that does no more than preach to the choir.

Get a grip, Elizabeth. Keep your eye on the big target.

]]> By: lamentable http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/27/when-talk-was-of-investing-in-public-good/comment-page-1/#comment-67415 lamentable Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:14:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15756#comment-67415 These sentiments which were common in the english speaking world through the 60's and 70's were long ago destroyed by the disastrous policy of mass immigration. It has all but eliminated formation of social capital in the nation, while transfering wealth from labor to capital. It's hunker down and every man for himself in a society were increasingly no one is related genetically or culturally anymore. Read Robert Putnams work on the effects of this, or better still look around you. These sentiments which were common in the english speaking world through the 60′s and 70′s were long ago destroyed by the disastrous policy of mass immigration. It has all but eliminated formation of social capital in the nation, while transfering wealth from labor to capital. It’s hunker down and every man for himself in a society were increasingly no one is related genetically or culturally anymore. Read Robert Putnams work on the effects of this, or better still look around you.

]]> By: Crash866 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/27/when-talk-was-of-investing-in-public-good/comment-page-1/#comment-67412 Crash866 Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:13:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15756#comment-67412 Cut spending... Cut spending…

]]> By: flashrooster http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/27/when-talk-was-of-investing-in-public-good/comment-page-1/#comment-67410 flashrooster Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:54:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15756#comment-67410 SayHey: You're wrong. Since around the time of WWII tax receipts have averaged just over 18% of GDP. In 2011 the federal government took in 15.4% of GDP in taxes, which is actually up from the previous two years where revenues were 15.1% of GDP. That's the lowest amount in tax revenue receipts relative to GDP since 1950. Considering we entered into two major, and expensive, wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) without raising taxes to pay for them, as we had always done in the past, and considering the amount of debt and the size of our deficits, it's just grossly irrational to maintain the lowest intake of tax revenues since 1950, particularly since America's wealthiest have profited amazingly well for a long time now, while everyone else has seen their earnings stagnate or decline. This is why increasing taxes only on the wealthy simply makes practical sense. With clear, non-partisan, non-lobbied thinking, it's the obvious thing to do. And the rich will continue to be rich and increase their earnings by double digits, while the rest of us will continue to languish in stagnation. But our nation, and its future, as a whole will benefit in important ways by increasing tax revenues. Thank you, Elizabeth Pearson, for stating in clear terms what needs to be said. It's comforting to know there are minds like yours analyzing our world, helping us to become better aware of it. Lord knows we need it. SayHey: You’re wrong. Since around the time of WWII tax receipts have averaged just over 18% of GDP. In 2011 the federal government took in 15.4% of GDP in taxes, which is actually up from the previous two years where revenues were 15.1% of GDP. That’s the lowest amount in tax revenue receipts relative to GDP since 1950. Considering we entered into two major, and expensive, wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) without raising taxes to pay for them, as we had always done in the past, and considering the amount of debt and the size of our deficits, it’s just grossly irrational to maintain the lowest intake of tax revenues since 1950, particularly since America’s wealthiest have profited amazingly well for a long time now, while everyone else has seen their earnings stagnate or decline. This is why increasing taxes only on the wealthy simply makes practical sense. With clear, non-partisan, non-lobbied thinking, it’s the obvious thing to do. And the rich will continue to be rich and increase their earnings by double digits, while the rest of us will continue to languish in stagnation. But our nation, and its future, as a whole will benefit in important ways by increasing tax revenues.

Thank you, Elizabeth Pearson, for stating in clear terms what needs to be said. It’s comforting to know there are minds like yours analyzing our world, helping us to become better aware of it. Lord knows we need it.

]]> By: flashrooster http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/27/when-talk-was-of-investing-in-public-good/comment-page-1/#comment-67409 flashrooster Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:39:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15756#comment-67409 SayHey: You're wrong. Since around the time of WWII tax receipts have averaged just over 18% of GDP. In 2011 the federal government took in 15.4% of GDP in taxes, which is actually up from the previous two years where revenues were 15.1% of GDP. That's the lowest amount in tax revenue receipts relative to GDP since 1950. Considering we entered into two major, and expensive, wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) without raising taxes to pay for them, as we had always done in the past, and considering the amount of debt and the size of our deficits, it's just grossly irrational to maintain the lowest intake of tax revenues since 1950, particularly since America's wealthiest have profited amazingly well for a long time now, while everyone else has seen their earnings stagnate or decline. This is why increasing taxes only on the wealthy simply makes practical sense. With clear, non-partisan, non-lobbied thinking, it's the obvious thing to do. And the rich will continue to be rich and increase their earnings by double digits, while the rest of us will continue to languish in stagnation. But our nation, and its future, as a whole will benefit in important ways by increasing tax revenues. Thank you, Elizabeth Pearson, for stating in clear terms what needs to be said. It's comforting to know there are minds like yours analyzing our world, helping us to become better aware of it. Lord knows we need it. SayHey: You’re wrong. Since around the time of WWII tax receipts have averaged just over 18% of GDP. In 2011 the federal government took in 15.4% of GDP in taxes, which is actually up from the previous two years where revenues were 15.1% of GDP. That’s the lowest amount in tax revenue receipts relative to GDP since 1950. Considering we entered into two major, and expensive, wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) without raising taxes to pay for them, as we had always done in the past, and considering the amount of debt and the size of our deficits, it’s just grossly irrational to maintain the lowest intake of tax revenues since 1950, particularly since America’s wealthiest have profited amazingly well for a long time now, while everyone else has seen their earnings stagnate or decline. This is why increasing taxes only on the wealthy simply makes practical sense. With clear, non-partisan, non-lobbied thinking, it’s the obvious thing to do. And the rich will continue to be rich and increase their earnings by double digits, while the rest of us will continue to languish in stagnation. But our nation, and its future, as a whole will benefit in important ways by increasing tax revenues.

Thank you, Elizabeth Pearson, for stating in clear terms what needs to be said. It’s comforting to know there are minds like yours analyzing our world, helping us to become better aware of it. Lord knows we need it.

]]> By: Caldreamin http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/27/when-talk-was-of-investing-in-public-good/comment-page-1/#comment-67407 Caldreamin Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:15:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15756#comment-67407 Your historic perspective is correct. However, taxes have been raised at the state level in many cases to levels which do harm to their own economies. CA for example. It will now have the highest taxes in the country but is ranked as the worst run state in the country. Near the bottom in education and infrastructure and the worst place to have a business. They have siphoned the entire state budget for self dealing benefits packages for the AFSCME and SEIU. AZ and TX are flying executives to visit friendlier environs to run a business. Your historic perspective is correct. However, taxes have been raised at the state level in many cases to levels which do harm to their own economies. CA for example. It will now have the highest taxes in the country but is ranked as the worst run state in the country. Near the bottom in education and infrastructure and the worst place to have a business. They have siphoned the entire state budget for self dealing benefits packages for the AFSCME and SEIU. AZ and TX are flying executives to visit friendlier environs to run a business.

]]> By: SayHey http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/27/when-talk-was-of-investing-in-public-good/comment-page-1/#comment-67371 SayHey Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:36:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15756#comment-67371 Most of what is cited here about support for higher taxes comes from the heart of the post-WW II boom, an unprecedented and never to be repeated phenomenon (see the references to 1960s Governors). We are not in that situation. Moreover, the perpetual claim that we are not "investing" (i.e. spending)enough by not having enough "revenue" (i.e. taxes) on education is patently false. The fact is that there is not enough money in the world to satisfy the public education/ public employee complex. To give just one example, the budget of the New York City school system is $24 billion (not counting the capital budget) - to put that in perspective, the budget of NASA is about $19 billion. To the extent there is public support for higher taxes, that support largely comes from those who themselves pay little or no taxes - so the support is hardly surprising. Most of what is cited here about support for higher taxes comes from the heart of the post-WW II boom, an unprecedented and never to be repeated phenomenon (see the references to 1960s Governors). We are not in that situation. Moreover, the perpetual claim that we are not “investing” (i.e. spending)enough by not having enough “revenue” (i.e. taxes) on education is patently false. The fact is that there is not enough money in the world to satisfy the public education/ public employee complex. To give just one example, the budget of the New York City school system is $24 billion (not counting the capital budget) – to put that in perspective, the budget of NASA is about $19 billion. To the extent there is public support for higher taxes, that support largely comes from those who themselves pay little or no taxes – so the support is hardly surprising.

]]>