Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

I am glad to see some dislike towards Reagan.
I was expecting a law to be passed making him Jesus actually. Might as well it seems blasphemous to speak ill of him.

And quite a number of Libertarians I know seem to love him which I never got either.
Yeah OK lower taxes but....all the fiscal responsibility of well a typical Republican these days

I know Rob, all you guys are so damn black and white (though you're better lol) any distinction is weird and arbitrary. Does it always have to be all or nothing? I see a distinction between small and large businesses. Sure, big ones WERE small ones that made it but....I live in now, not the past

Oh and Rob that idea isn't so insane. We've all heard of PAYGO, which basically said the budget had to be balanced. Implemented in 1990, balanced budget by the end of the decade? Hmmmm
Also note PAYGO was loopholed to push the Bush tax cuts through. Then it expired and it was never renewed allowing wubya to spend like a madman.
And I know "we're in crisis" so Obama was given free reign as well but I would really really like to see PAYGO put back.


Edited by JJLehto - February 06 2011 at 14:50

Henry Plainview wrote:   Equality 7-2521 wrote: What bad things? Eventually Congress would just become unified enough to veto. If the government actually shut down for a time I would consider that bad. And with this Congress it would probably take an actual shut down before they got their supermajority. The great thing, JJ, is that Reagan didn't really lower taxes, but everybody remembers him as having done that through the magic of the media.

Don't need to tell me Henry or Pat!
Trust me I am fully aware of that fact!
This is more open to interpretation but I also don't credit him with "winning" the Cold War. That's a different story though.
And plays into what I originally said. OK obviously it's not like Stalin or something, but there's been an almost Cult of Personality built around Reagan I swear.


Edited by JJLehto - February 06 2011 at 14:58

The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year. One was "bracket creep," by which just inflation wafted people into higher tax brackets, so that with the same real income (in terms of purchasing power) people found themselves paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, even though the official tax rate went down. The other was the usual whopping increase in Social Security taxes which, however, don’t count, in the perverse semantics of our time, as "taxes"; they are only "insurance premiums." In the ensuing years the Reagan Administration has constantly raised taxes – to punish us for the fake tax cut of 1981 – beginning in 1982 with the largest single tax increase in American history, costing taxpayers $100 billion.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year. One was "bracket creep," by which just inflation wafted people into higher tax brackets, so that with the same real income (in terms of purchasing power) people found themselves paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, even though the official tax rate went down. The other was the usual whopping increase in Social Security taxes which, however, don’t count, in the perverse semantics of our time, as "taxes"; they are only "insurance premiums." In the ensuing years the Reagan Administration has constantly raised taxes – to punish us for the fake tax cut of 1981 – beginning in 1982 with the largest single tax increase in American history, costing taxpayers $100 billion.

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the partial repeal of future tax cuts that had yet to be enacted.  For the next 3 years there would be over $375 Billion in tax cuts.

Very interesting article. As I haven't lived here all my life, I'm much more ignorant of Reagan than of presidents a d politics since Bush W. It's strange to see the fascination that some in the right have with him, and that fact by itself should make people suspicious: too much personal adoration from the media suggests interests behind it, period. Or commercial appeal. Or both. So in the end he appears to have been just as pro-government as all the lefties after him, wasn't he?

Now, in another light, though originated in my reading of that article, I found this apparent explanation of why social security is not a ponzi scheme. I think the whole thing fails inmediately after it says that one is a "forced" payment from taxpayers, and then acknowledges that Madoff would have loved to have the option to force people to pay. What do you think?

The T wrote: Very interesting article. As I haven't lived here all my life, I'm much more ignorant of Reagan than of presidents a d politics since Bush W. It's strange to see the fascination that some in the right have with him, and that fact by itself should make people suspicious: too much personal adoration from the media suggests interests behind it, period. Or commercial appeal. Or both. So in the end he appears to have been just as pro-government as all the lefties after him, wasn't he? Now, in another light, though originated in my reading of that article, I found this apparent explanation of why social security is not a ponzi scheme. I think the whole thing fails inmediately after it says that one is a "forced" payment from taxpayers, and then acknowledges that Madoff would have loved to have the option to force people to pay. What do you think?

Yes he certainly was. I used to be an admirer of him, and I would make excuses for why his policies ended up the way that they did. No longer.

About the article.

article wrote: First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled. Madoff allegedly falsely claimed to have discovered a "black box" method of earning impressive results, and by doing so enticed individuals and organizations to invest with him. Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns. (Of course, it's true that if Madoff had the power to require participation, he would have had an easier time keeping his alleged scheme rolling.)

My first critique would be that people are being misled. It's called Social Security Insurance. This implies that it operates as insurance, where premiums are invested to yield a profit to be used to pay out the beneficiaries. This is not so. Also, why is deception necessary for it to be a Ponzi Scheme? Especially when one is forced into it. If Ponzi held a gun to your head and said "Give me money. Here's what I'm going to do with it.", we wouldn't have written it off as a good thing because he wasn't deceptive about what he was doing with the money.

It's true that Social Security faces a huge burden -- and a significant, long-term financing problem -- in light of retiring Baby Boomers. (The latest projections anticipate Social Security tax revenues to fall below costs in 2017 and the Social Security Trust Funds to be exhausted in 2041.) But Social Security can be, and has been, tweaked and modified to reflect changes in the size of the taxpaying workforce and the number of beneficiaries. It would take great political will, but the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing.

The basic argument laid out here is that, it's not a Ponzi Scheme because it's not doomed to fail. The government can just tax more to keep the system going. Oh my. And someone printed that justification? It's not a ponzi scheme because instead of crumbling because of lack of new investors, we can just take more from the current investors? Terrible.

Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme and fundamentally different from what Madoff allegedly did.

Yeah... Because it has good intentions...

Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: I don't thin anyone really believed that Teo, least I hope not. Obvious SS was not a ponzi scheme, BUT it makes a strong case against it especially in light of Madoff. One powerful talking point to be used by the opposition. *Raises hand*

I thought by now we could assume there is always an exception made for you...

JJLehto wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: I don't thin anyone really believed that Teo, least I hope not. Obvious SS was not a ponzi scheme, BUT it makes a strong case against it especially in light of Madoff. One powerful talking point to be used by the opposition. *Raises hand* I thought by now we could assume there is always an exception made for you...

I actually didn't think that anyone who wasn't 65 and already looting people through SS actually thought it was anything besides a Ponzi Scheme which should be abolished immediately.

Obama just said he wants to lower corporate taxes?
Even mentioned doing away with some outdated/unnecessary regulation.

That socialist b*****d! Next thing you know he'll declare the government takeover of all businesses and centrally planned economies. It would be the logical next step!