http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf Given that the facts don't support their beliefs, I'm hopeful that now they'll moderate their false beliefs and help the Democrats move the country forward. But I'm not holding my breath.
A whole lot of Republican economic arguments have limited empirical support. Boosting economic growth by cutting tax rates. The notion that capital gains and/or corporations should be taxed at lower rates than earned income. And of course the notion that private health care is delivered better and more efficiently than government solutions. But they so often are stated as proven facts.
What did Poppy Bush call Reaganomics, everyone? Voodoo Economics. There's lots of truth-telling during primaries that people quickly forget in the general, but this moniker still remains true 30 years on.
The Republican party is made of mainly two segments: The religious base that have extreme views on government and other affairs that are basically required to believe on what the preachers say despite being proven wrong by science and reality. And you also have the Christian Right...
I don't have a problem with capital gains being taxed at lower rates than earned income, but I think it should be progressive, based on how much of your income comes from earned income vs. capital gains. so if less than 10% of your income comes from capital gains, I'm okay with it being taxed lightly. but if the number is 90%, then I would want to see it get taxed at a rate close to earned income for the same income bracket.
Do you have evidence to contradict said "Talking Points"? Otherwise you are guilty of an ad-hominem attack...
What evidence? That if you give more money to the government and take more money from the rich we would be better off? Superdave based on his posts seems to have a lot of faith in the federal government handling our money. I'm trying to think where I heard that before. Oh yes, I remember. If everybody in the US believed as superdave does, the US would be Argentina today.
http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/ As far as I can tell, that's the group that undertook and published the research. They're not a Democratic think tank or spin factory. Calling this a talking point doesn't seem overly accurate.
You're losing it here. First, you're strawmanning Dave's post. It didn't say anything remotely like take from the rich, give to the government, all will be good. Those are your words, not those of the post. Second, the argument that if we do X and another country does X, then we will become the other country, is a very poor argument. There are 143 countries that spend more on government (as a percent of GDP) than does the U.S. They range from very terrible countries to the best countries in the world. You can "prove" anything you want with that. Third, Argentina isn't one of those 143 countries. It's at #146 on the list. Well alright it's an old list, the order might have switched around a bit, but close enough. http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html I dunno, you're usually sound but there's some kind of Tea Party thing that kicks in with you sometimes, about how gubmints are bad and corrupt and private enterprises are inevitably better. Not so. As with anything else, it's situational.
If you use that list then you don't know the history of Argentina. They had to stop spending by that point because they were completely broke. They had run out of rich to tax, because they all either left or took their money out of the country. But now they are getting a second wind and trying hard to get back to the old failed policies. BTW, the Argentina dig at superdave is partly because he started a thread some time ago praising the economic policies of Cristina Kirchner.
Out of curiosity... What were the taxation/spending levels of Argentina that caused the crisis? Are we talking Greece-like where no one pays taxes and gets everything from government or are we in a more sane scenario, something like expenditures as 20 to 30% of GDP and top tax rate in the mid 30s? As far as I can read, Superdave's post only addresses reducing the tax level, specially of the top brackets ( like W did) and does not pretend to address neither different tax scenarios or expenditure levels...
Wiki makes it sounds like Greece, with "massive tax evasion" and offshore money laundering. Then the IMF did its usual damage, imposing an austerity program that plunged Argentina into a depression that decreased government revenues at a time when the government most needed revenues. All very familiar.
I am sure ASF will share the details, but for what I remember (from many years ago in school) was the populist government came in, spent more money that they had (some in good projects, some in corruption stuff) had huge debt, raised taxes kept spending, the peso kept losing value so the middle/rich class got rid of pesos and moved the money overseas (so massive tax evasion as you describe), then the government could not get loans anymore so they had to go to the evil IMF to borrow money they put conditions on the government to lend them money (balancing their budget, those evil fuckers). Then again maybe I am thinking Mexico, so I could be wrong. A difference was I believe Argentina borrowed in dollars so when the peso (or was it peseta) lost value the debt got bigger in exchange rate terms.
But the larger point of JohnR's post was that Argentina isn't the be-all and end-all when it comes to explain when or why government spending is a good or bad thing. There are plenty of succesful countries out there that spend more as a percentage of GDP than the US (or Argentina). Plus, you didn't explain why you think Dave is posting a 'talking point', or how do you refute the data and assertions in his link.
Of course the numbers are also hardly comparable. The US number only includes federal spending while f.e. all European numbers are for all government levels. If you add local and state level the US jumps up into the middle of the list (35-40%). You also have to think about the services you get for the expenditure. European governments often provide more services you have to buy private in the US. If you think private is always better than government provided that is an advantage but I'd say that does not have much to do with reality. Private might be better but it isn't guaranteed.
I'm not sure how it was in Greece, but what I remember from Argentina is that since Peron's time the government was very big and very generous in terms of benefits and promises to the citizens. Lots of money for public education, free health care for everybody, generous retirement and unemployment benefits, and a very large number of public employees with even more generous benefits. On the tax side, most people payed no income taxes at all, but the high earners had a very high income tax rate. In addition, taxes for corporations and partnerships and businesses in general were very high, and also fees for doing business were very high. Capital gains taxes were high. There was a value added tax (sales tax) that was relatively high and was payed at all levels of the distribution channel from the manufacturer/importer to the wholesaler to the retailer to the consumer. Also tariffs and duties were very high. There were also many restrictions on trade, barriers to imports, and fees for exports. Property taxes were low for a first residence up to a certain level but very high for high cost residences and for second residences as well as land, business properties and rental properties. Basically it was an Occupy Wall Street protester's wet dream, a place where the government promised a lot to regular folks and make it very difficult for the rich and especially for businesses and job creators to exist. That's the Argentina I knew growing up. Needless to say, things didn't work out too well.
You know what's fun? Looking after your inlaws money in the US because Cristina won't allow them to use it. And they thought living in La Plata for their retirement years was a swell idea.