Beware the East India Company!

4/2/2011 2:51:56 AM

interesting

Do you mind me asking where you keep finding these videos? I've never heard of RT

[Edited on April 2, 2011 at 11:53 AM. Reason : the more things change the more they stay the same]

4/2/2011 11:53:06 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt_tv

Of course, like most things, the truth is in the middle. The "tax cut" was only the final straw. The immediately preceding tax hike was the Townshend Acts, which were designed to raise more revenue from the colonies to subsidize a previous revenue loss from an earlier tax cut in Britain.

In fact, really the better headline is "Unfair tax policies lead to the Boston Tea Party" as the colonists were not against paying taxes in their entirety. Just against the favoritism and lack of representation.

[Edited on April 2, 2011 at 12:35 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/2/2011 12:06:10 PM

Most Americans seen themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires rather than blue-collar workers who have become poorer over time as wealth pools towards the top.

(to paraphrase bill maher)

4/2/2011 12:20:33 PM

RT is mostly only mascaraing as a real news organization. Not that that's a bad thing. I LOVE ragtag news. I'm just saying, the format and feel of their videos are really only on the surface. They don't have... money, and one way it shows is in how polished their opinion pieces are.

But I'm not a fan of how they defend Russia. I know, I know, that much should have been suspect from the start. But they're not neutral in the slightest. Nonetheless, great anti-U.S. stuff sometimes. You might as well just assume that the U.S. govt is RT's mortal enemy. They act just about as if that's the case.

4/2/2011 2:35:52 PM

1337 b4k4, isn't that what's happening today? The tax burden has shifted from the corporate aristocrats to the middle class serfs. Too bad today's teabaggers have been fooled into fighing for the aristocracy and against their fellow citizens.

4/2/2011 3:11:41 PM

No, the EIC had a government monopoly on tea. That is what lead to the Boston Tea Party.

You are spreading outright lies.

4/2/2011 7:47:09 PM

Corporations used to supply 30 percent of the federal revenue in the 1950s. Now it's down to 6 percent.

4/2/2011 8:08:26 PM

is it any wonder, when they can move headquarters somewhere else and only pay 15% in taxes?

4/2/2011 10:08:18 PM

What about the corporations that pay no taxes, and STILL move their headquarters...?

And what about the corporations that keep the HQ here, and still have massive profits (IBM, Google, Apple, etc.)?

YOU PEOPLE arguing that poor corporations are so battered by the vicious middle class wielding the government as a weapon have been tricked by the corporations into helping boost their profit margins and executive perks and bonuses.

The fact of the matter is for a while now, it hasn't been the corporations feeling the squeeze financially, it's the working class. The corporations ALREADY have MORE than enough power and clout in Washington to hold their own, it's the rest of us that need a bigger voice.

4/3/2011 1:56:25 AM

Raising taxes won't tax the corporations with clout. Remember, the powerful don't pay taxes. They collect tax rebates. Taxes are only paid by their competitors.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/01/obamacares-early-retiree-progr

Quote :

"The biggest single recipient of an early-retiree bailout is the Unite Auto Workers, which has so far received $206,798,086. Other big recipients include AT&T, which received $140,022,949, and Verizon which received $91,702,538. General Electric, in the news recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year, received $36,607,818. General Motors, recipient of a massive government bailout, received $19,002,669. "

[Edited on April 3, 2011 at 2:30 AM. Reason : . .]

4/3/2011 2:27:25 AM

It's really really hard for me to believe that the same people who are unhappy about paying for workers' health care in Wisconsin are totally fine with paying $3B to GE for turning a profit. I have no idea what world they are living in. It's sick.

4/3/2011 12:11:21 PM

I'm sorry, where did anyone say that they're fine with [the federal government] paying GE for turning a profit?

4/3/2011 12:44:12 PM

^ they didnt. the problem is they dont stand up against it.

4/3/2011 12:54:14 PM

Anyone who says that "GE is just doing good business" is implicitly giving their approval. If you're not outraged at the fact that they're getting money back from the government for turning a profit then you're as bad as the lobbyists who implemented this system in the first place.

4/3/2011 12:56:06 PM

It's not GE's fault for bending the tax code in all kinds of positions like it was your mom.

It's our fault for letting our government write a tax code that GE could so thoroughly have its way with.

4/3/2011 1:31:15 PM

Which is why I'm amazed that some of you are praising them for doing it instead of being outraged.

4/3/2011 3:22:01 PM

You are misdirecting your anger. Stop being angry at GE. They have done nothing wrong and your attacks on them are absurd and unfounded. The criminals here are the legislators in Congress. Crush the government, only then will it stop giving tax credits to corporations.

That said, as a libertarian it is our duty to milk the government out of all the money we can within the letter of the law. Draining the beast is the only way we can individually help keep it smaller. As such, GE is a saint for depriving Congress of $3 billion it might have otherwise used to drop bombs on Bahrain.

[Edited on April 3, 2011 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/3/2011 3:36:23 PM

Quote :

"That said, as a libertarian it is our duty to milk the government out of all the money we can within the letter of the law. Draining the beast is the only way we can individually help keep it smaller. As such, GE is a saint for depriving Congress of $3 billion it might have otherwise used to drop bombs on Bahrain. "

That is without a doubt the stupidest and most disturbing thing I have ever seen you post. The #1 reason I can't possibly get behind libertarianism is the fucking greed with which you all conduct yourselves. It's absolutely disgusting. I agree that looking out for and being responsible for yourself should be everyone's concern. But not at the cost of everyone else around you. Prosperity is not a fucking zero sum game. Get some fucking decency about yourself.

4/3/2011 3:47:56 PM

From your reaction I can only conclude you misunderstand. The reason we want to drain the Government is not for any benefit to ourselves, as the government only wants these tax loopholes to be used by their friends and therefore make it expensive for the rest of us to use them. No, the purpose is to protect the citizens around us from said government. Everything government does requires money. Therefore, a government without money is far less eager to Eminent Domain your house, rig society to serve its own interests, spy into your bedroom, or otherwise try to micromanage your life.

If anything, as the trial of Andrew Mellon in the 1930s showed, attempting to deprive the government of revenue in this legal fashion will often make you a target, and once a target they will stop at nothing to wreck your life. So, no, there is no greed here, only a desire to take the heat off our fellow citizens.

4/3/2011 4:05:07 PM

I totally agree! We should totally get rid of all government so we can have more things like this go on with no one to stop them.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/wachovia-paid-trivial-fine-for-nearly-400-billion-of-drug-related-money-laundering.html

That way they won't even have to go through the government at all to fuck all of us!

4/3/2011 4:13:51 PM

As a future CPA, I appose all future tax reform.

4/3/2011 4:18:25 PM

Quote :

"We should totally get rid of all government so we can have more things like this go on with no one to stop them."

For fucks sake man. Only a very small minority of LIBERTARIANS are anarchist.

4/3/2011 5:17:08 PM

Well then libertarians have done a really shitty job of articulating exactly what it is they want.

4/3/2011 5:25:03 PM

Not at all.

4/3/2011 5:37:01 PM

actually, if we've learned anything from the last 30 years, the concept of starving the beast, or draining the beast as you put it, doesn't work. americans actually like the government spending money. it's not a bad thing as long as it stimulates economic growth which then outpaces the spending. that's one thing reagan at least understood and why deficit spending is okay to a certain degree. it's what finally got us out of the great depression.

[Edited on April 3, 2011 at 11:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2011 11:07:05 PM

I think the place we should be trying to get is better government, not necessarily less. In some cases less government in the answer. In other cases it's a matter of reforming current policies. Adhering to a strict non-negotiable ideology is not the answer.

4/4/2011 12:13:06 AM

^ My statement had to do with filling out your tax returns. It had nothing to do with what the government should do or not do.

^^ Actually, it does. GE walked away with $3B in profit from the act of filling out a tax return.

As for your other statement, as Mike Munger pointed out when he spoke here on campus a week or so ago, government spending to any degree only ever produces economic growth when it reduces the cost of future productive activity, such as opening a canal to the great lakes, the first highway to a city, funding courts to enforce contracts, suppressing Indian attacks on traders, etc. All of which can easily be funded on current revenues. However, as Deficits are Future Taxes (DAFT), running deficits does not reduce the cost of future economic activity, it actually makes it more expensive, as whatever economic activity we have must now pay more tax revenue. As such, while the economy improved in the 80s, it had nothing to do with deficit spending and everything to do with deregulation of the nation's road, rail, and air transportation sectors and the resultant reduction in the transportation costs of future productive activities. What do you think Obama is spending money on that is going to come close to reducing costs nearly enough to cover all the taxes needed to pay just the interest on trillions of dollars in deficits?

Also, anyone that lived through WW2 will tell you, and economic historians have calculated, private sector investment did not recover from the 1929 crash until after the war in 1945 when Congress cut taxes across the board, especially corporate tax rates, dramatically reduced spending, and went from deficits to significant surpluses paying down the war debt. By 1946 unemployment was back down to 3.9% after absorbing millions of returning service men to the private workforce.

4/4/2011 1:21:08 AM

Quote :

"I think the place we should be trying to get is better government, not necessarily less. In some cases less government in the answer. In other cases it's a matter of reforming current policies. Adhering to a strict non-negotiable ideology is not the answer."

unfortunately, in the eyes of republicans, "reform" is the R word

Quote :

"^^ Actually, it does. GE walked away with $3B in profit from the act of filling out a tax return. As for your other statement, as Mike Munger pointed out when he spoke here on campus a week or so ago, government spending to any degree only ever produces economic growth when it reduces the cost of future productive activity, such as opening a canal to the great lakes, the first highway to a city, funding courts to enforce contracts, suppressing Indian attacks on traders, etc. All of which can easily be funded on current revenues. However, as Deficits are Future Taxes (DAFT), running deficits does not reduce the cost of future economic activity, it actually makes it more expensive, as whatever economic activity we have must now pay more tax revenue. As such, while the economy improved in the 80s, it had nothing to do with deficit spending and everything to do with deregulation of the nation's road, rail, and air transportation sectors and the resultant reduction in the transportation costs of future productive activities. What do you think Obama is spending money on that is going to come close to reducing costs nearly enough to cover all the taxes needed to pay just the interest on trillions of dollars in deficits? Also, anyone that lived through WW2 will tell you, and economic historians have calculated, private sector investment did not recover from the 1929 crash until after the war in 1945 when Congress cut taxes across the board, especially corporate tax rates, dramatically reduced spending, and went from deficits to significant surpluses paying down the war debt. By 1946 unemployment was back down to 3.9% after absorbing millions of returning service men to the private workforce."

you would benefit from reading the new american economy by bruce bartlett. and much of the government spending around WW2 went into things like science, technology and industry, which saw a ton of growth in the decades after the war. keep in mind we got into korea and then vietnam after WW2, so we were still spending a lot of money after WW2 on other conflicts. i'm not suggesting it takes constant wars to promote growth, because, well.....iraq.

and i said deficit spending is okay to a certain degree. it's not the cure for everything that republicans have made it out to be over the last few years. it played a part in the growth in the 80s. saying it didn't isn't true.

[Edited on April 4, 2011 at 1:46 AM. Reason : .]

4/4/2011 1:24:50 AM

But not enough money to exceed revenues, as it was not until the wars of the 50s, and a decade of strong economic growth, that deficits returned.

It is your opinion that deficits fuel growth. In my educated opinion, the growth in the 80s was despite the deficits and in no way because of them. Deficits are Future Taxes, and Taxes drive up costs and are therefore a drag on prosperity, not its source.

Economic prosperity can survive quite a bit of taxation. But no amount of taxation can restore prosperity.

4/4/2011 1:55:17 AM

deficits CAN fuel growth, but not always. and it's not my opinion that you seem to think is unsubstantiated when i've seen the evidence for it. i don't belong to the dick cheney camp of "deficits don't matter" because that's only a half truth. they matter. it's just that they can spur economic recovery at times, but not every time.

4/4/2011 8:01:59 AM

You can keep saying it. Doesn't make it true. There is no mechanism through-which deficits can have a positive impact upon the economy. The only theory that could claim otherwise was Keynesian-ism, whose proponents accepted could only ever work in rare circumstances, a liquidity trap, which has not been seen in the data since 1936.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

4/4/2011 12:34:05 PM

Libertarianism causes feudalism.

4/4/2011 1:23:53 PM

Rule by the Democratic Party is Feudalism. Forgive me for wanting there to be more than a single step to serfdom.

4/4/2011 1:58:49 PM

Quote :

"it's what finally got us out of the great depression. "

no, that would be WWII

4/4/2011 5:42:08 PM

Quote :

"whose proponents accepted could only ever work in rare circumstances, a liquidity trap"

There are very few proponents of Keynesianism that would claim such a thing, in fact I would say it is the opponents of Keynesianism that would only reluctantly claim that. In fact as aaronburro is proving, people will readily claim that the deficit spending during WW2 assisted the economy, yet many people shake their heads when the same kind of deficit spending (only used for infrastructure and social programs rather than guns and bombs) is claimed to have the same effect.

4/4/2011 6:35:17 PM

ummm, no. I say that the destruction of 1/4th of the world's economy via WWII enabled us to claw our way out of the depression by allowing us to sell our widgets to everyone else

4/4/2011 6:37:36 PM

^^ No person living at that time would claim the economy did well during WW2. Sure, it produced a lot of planes and tanks, but everything else anyone would want was in perpetual short supply due to under-investment and failure to perform basic maintenance due to price controls during a period of rapid inflation.

[Edited on April 4, 2011 at 7:01 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/4/2011 6:53:10 PM

Quote :

"ummm, no. I say that the destruction of 1/4th of the world's economy via WWII enabled us to claw our way out of the depression by allowing us to sell our widgets to everyone else"

Economics is not a zero sum game, if their economy was destroyed, then they have nothing to trade for our widgets.

Quote :

"Sure, it produced a lot of planes and tanks, but everything else anyone would want was in perpetual short supply."

Oh, and I agree, I think the idea that the war got us out of the depression is quite stupid. I'd argue that it was the abandonment of the gold standard, and in the US, the dividends paid from investments made in infrastructure and such as part of the New Deal.

4/4/2011 7:12:48 PM

And I argue it was the removal of FDR from office and the election of an anti-New Deal Congress which removed regime uncertainty and restored private sector investment to pre-depression levels.

4/4/2011 8:06:09 PM

Of course you do, and I suppose you give the same revisionist retort when someone points out that the economy saw the astronomical growth rate before any of that happened. I can't imagine how much happier those people would be if FDR would have died earlier, and I like to point out that he died, because he wouldn't have left office for quite a while considering he was the most popular president ever and won every election he was in by insanely large margins, it's astounding that some people actually try to paint him as "unpopular".

[Edited on April 4, 2011 at 8:38 PM. Reason : ]

4/4/2011 8:34:52 PM

Quote :

"Economics is not a zero sum game, if their economy was destroyed, then they have nothing to trade for our widgets."

No, but they do have a need for widgets and all kinds of shit that was destroyed. And guess who is there to sell it to them, on credit!

4/4/2011 8:41:16 PM

Except that never happened, in fact, pretty much the opposite happened, since the 1960's we sold debt, not bought it.

4/4/2011 9:53:12 PM

great non sequitor.

Oh, I'm sure you've already got some sort of copy pasta'd argument worked out in that vast empty expanse that is your brain that you actually could have taken the time to post.

But why bother when you've got one on the hook, right?

[Edited on April 4, 2011 at 10:02 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2011 10:00:58 PM

1960s > WWII. genius

4/4/2011 10:00:58 PM

Quote :

"Oh, I'm sure you've already got some sort of copy pasta'd argument worked out in that vast empty expanse that is your brain that you actually could have taken the time to post."

What are you even talking about? Do you post nonsense in threads simply to ride my nuts or do you have some greater goal here? I guess you've just got a hankering for butthurt, it's been a while since I've given you the correct amount logical polite responses to get you to rage hard enough to shit your pants, hasn't it?

Quote :

"1960s > WWII. genius"

Unlike you I generally have some sort of evidence when I post things like that, so I'll give you the amount of debt we've sold since 1940, since that alone would destroy your argument and give some context to mine.

4/4/2011 10:29:06 PM

so, because we started being debtors after 1960, it means we didn't sell people shit on THEIR CREDIT after WWII? fucking brilliant, dude. fucking. brilliant

4/4/2011 11:05:16 PM

Quote :

"it means we didn't sell people shit on THEIR CREDIT after WWII?"

No, we didn't because we didn't, you can find it here:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/imts/Historical%20data%201900-1960.pdf

Sorry, somehow the shit you pulled out of your ass holds the validity of something that someone, say, made up on the spot.

4/4/2011 11:21:12 PM

4/4/2011 11:21:47 PM

Quote :

"it's astounding that some people actually try to paint him as "unpopular"."

I would never dare to do such a thing. He was easily as popular as George W. Bush.

4/5/2011 12:32:27 AM