Fiscal irresponsibility - McCain & Obama tax policies

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Bullshit.

your mom's a lesbian

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

this is a problem in banking when investment and commercial banks cook their books. hence the need for more regulation. hence the need for an Obama presidency.

Hell, mon, the banks are already fairly well regulated - it's the other players (unregulated) in the financial markets that drove us halfway off the cliff from their SubPrime intoxication.

The banks agreed to regulation after the Great Depression. As part of the bailing from Bernanke, the other sectors in the financial markets have to be regulated. They've proven they can't self-regulate, and as a nation, we can't afford the destructive effects of unbridled greed, not in that market.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Hell, mon, the banks are already fairly well regulated - it's the other players (unregulated) in the financial markets that drove us halfway off the cliff from their SubPrime intoxication.

The banks agreed to regulation after the Great Depression. As part of the bailing from Bernanke, the other sectors in the financial markets have to be regulated. They've proven they can't self-regulate, and as a nation, we can't afford the destructive effects of unbridled greed, not in that market.

I was speaking more of the abolition of wall between investment banking and commercial banking making it easier for the commercial banking compartment to make a loan to its investment bank to push up its stock. Excessive deregulation by Bob Rubin and the Clinton administration created the bubble.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Not to jump into this bar fight, but there are certainly legitimate reasons for selective redistribution of wealth, it's not simply a means of buying votes through programs (I know that's the conservative fantasy, but if that were true, people on welfare would be making a lot more than they do, and Bill Clinton would have never agreed to welfare reform).

An extreme example of a situation where tax policy could effectively make the whole society (hence economy) improve: El Salvador, where 1% of the nation own 99% of the wealth. This really isn't good for anyone.

Slashing spending to match post tax-cut revenue would be politically untenable, and I'm sure conservatives wouldn't go for the commensurate cuts in weapons programs.

We got here on a sugar high, there's no place to go without some pain.

Here is economic growth under administrations of different parties, with a one-year lag.


Growth under dem administrations is both higher and more equitable.

And less Arch bring up the tech bubble again and make some looney connection to tax hikes, the figures attribute the bubble to Clinton.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Here is economic growth under administrations of different parties, with a one-year lag.


Growth under dem administrations is both higher and more equitable.

And less Arch bring up the tech bubble again and make some looney connection to tax hikes, the figures attribute the bubble to Clinton.

Oh my, that is so much bull. Man I wish I had the time today to debunk this malarky.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Oh my, that is so much bull. Man I wish I had the time today to debunk this malarky.

Before I would devote time to debunk Chino's blatant dishonesty I deserve to be paid.

I can see Seattle disdain for Chino now.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Before I would devote time to debunk Chino's blatant dishonesty I deserve to be paid.

I can see Seattle disdain for Chino now.

Everything I've said is ground in economic theory and empirics. Your lawyering crap might get you by in the liberal arts, not here. Pulling terms from wikipedia to make it look like you know what you're talking about won't work either. And like appealing to SU would boost your credibility or something.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Everything I've said is ground in economic theory and empirics. Your lawyering crap might get you by in the liberal arts, not here. Pulling terms from wikipedia to make it look like you know what you're talking about won't work either. And like appealing to SU would boost your credibility or something.

You believe that graph proves your point? If so, then I know you're dishonest.

I can go to the Heritage Foundation or one of the conservative economic thinktanks to countermand your bullshit.

Did you learn that shit in Paulsen's advanced philosophy class as well? Others learn stuff besides you.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You believe that graph proves your point? If so, then I know you're dishonest.

I can go to the Heritage Foundation or one of the conservative economic thinktanks to countermand your bullshit.

Did you learn that shit in Paulsen's advanced philosophy class as well? Others learn stuff besides you.

You're mom's a lesbian.

This is an automatic response until you come up with something substantive.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

hahaaha! this is the best thing you've said the entire thread. you're almost right, cross-country regressions have their weaknesses. but asymmetric information is a micro issue, and macro is still 900% more valid than your theological, process philosophy, textual criticism garbage.

The problem with Asymetric information is determining how much is asymetric.

How much more does the bank know than the average consumer?