You make some good points about historical correlations. Anyway, let me answer your questions. You are right that in Latin American a 'liberal' is considered to be somebody who is for free market and free trade principles. The 'Liberals' in Argentina were considered 'Right Wing'. In this case I was using the term the way it is understood in America. A 'liberal' as a proponent of big government. As far as 'certainly', I meant: 'I certainly think that..' I was not trying to write a philosophical treatise, just giving an opinion. I love philosophy and I have read some of Descartes works and commentaries but I certainly did not have them in mind when I posted here. I agree that we could lower the taxes a bit more for the middle classes and small businesses, and raise them a bit for the top 1 percent. But we cannot overdo it, or we will stiffle capital. I agree also that we should simplify the tax code. What is your opinion of corporate taxes? I think corporate taxes are regressive because they are treated by businesses as an expense and passed on to consumers. We should think of this next time we hear people talking about raising taxes on corporations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jobless Recovery" a myth Quarterly GDP numbers, followed by the revisions. Are you talking about the weekly claims? Because that's something I have been noticing being revised negatively on a somewhat consistent basis for the past couple of months or so, but that's something I haven't been following enough to know if that's SOP for the Bureau of Labor or not. Although one of the lefty econ bloggers I take a look at occasionally seemed a little perplexed by the what was happening with the numbers, so perhaps it isn't SOP.
BINGO.. What the politicians conveniently "forget" is that these cycles are motion for years and although the eonomy is complex, they are predictble to a certain extent. Usually, by the time a Presidents policy is taking effect, he is already out of office. There is no magical "button" (as was metioned in an earlier post) that can find solution. Politicians on both sides should know better than to "take credit" for economic results.
First, the American definition of liberal makes Bush a liberal. Fed spending is up 18% over 2000, the federal governmnet has become more activist (Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind,...) and State's Rights are being subjugated to federal authority (medicinal marijuana, euthanasia.) Now conservatives are trying to claim success for W's policies, when the conservative instinct should point to free markets rather than central planning and control. Second, corporations do not see taxes as an expense, as taxes are due on profits, not due on operations. There is no way to pass costs on to consumers. There are plenty of business structures that pay no taxes, including LLCs, S corps and unprofitable C corps. Only C corps can be publicly listed and traded, so the downside of paying taxes is a highly liquid market for equities. Not a bad trade-off.
Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? I'm so interested in this issue. I'm interested because I've always considered myself a liberal, especially after reading John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. And it seems like some people use the word “liberal” almost as an epithet. For those who do that, I feel like saying, “If you want to say someone is a jerk, just say they are 'jerk.' Don’t say they are a 'liberal.' Otherwise it can contribute to confusion. And good ideas can get dismissed without their getting a fair shake.” If you are using the word "liberal" to mean a proponent of big government, then the following claim seems problematic: "Certainly the tax cuts are helping, against the liberals predictions." Surely some proponents of "big government" predicted that the Bush tax cuts would not contribute to a higher rate of economic growth. But did all? Part of what is problematic is along the lines of what Roel said. That is, some people who think that, in a democratic way, we should use governments in order to try to help increase the prospects of the least well-off don't want laws that imprison people for having abortions, or for smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own home (as long as they are over a certain age and not operating dangerous equipment like cars), or for having consensual anal sex. I don't want to get put in jail for looking at Playboy. Moreover, even some of us who think democratic governments should help us alleviate hardship and help us see that people develop certain valuable capabilities don’t particularly care about the size of government in terms of the number of square feet of government. And, although I don’t know all the issues, I tend to think a lot less tax dollars should be spent on defense. And I think we should stop sending humans into outer-space. It’s dangerous; it doesn’t advance scientific understanding anymore than using robots and telescopes; and it costs a heck of a lot in terms of money/resources. And, although I don’t know a lot about farm subsidies, I tend to oppose them. I should have been more mindful of the context. I don’t know a lot about corporate taxes. I’ll try to learn more. I do want to increase government revenue and use it in certain ways. And I want to do it in a way that is not “taxing” – that doesn’t significantly reduce people’s options. That is why I look toward greater progressivity of the federal income tax rates for citizens. The Hilton sisters can afford it. Perhaps it does help some people for the Hilton sisters to buy closets full of $ 2,000 dollar gowns that they wear one time. But it seems to me that we can contribute to the greater good if we increase their taxes and use the money on, for instance, health care and education. Wouldn’t that make it easier for us to ensure that people are above a minimal line? And there are a lot of people struggling in this country and around the world. If we could do it all with no taxes, then we should. But that seems highly unlikely – at least given where we are at today. One thing: Some people criticize "corporate welfare." What is that? I tend to think that if giving away goodies to corporations is the only way to get them into a depressed town so that they can help the town (e.g. by supplying good jobs), then shouldn't the people in the town do it? But I don’t know a lot about the issues.
Well, everyone else does such a good job of politicizing these things, I thought I would jump in just once and open one of these. I was just shutting the computer down and getting ready for bed when the news came in too, GREAT TIMING!!!
Even though the airlines were bailed out (funny, but i don't recall Congress shedding tears for the thousands of lost jobs in & around NYC) I still think they laid off a ton of people. And that was all over the country.
If you think that the airlines laid off tens of thousands really because of 9/11, I've got a couple of Boeing 767's to sell you. There's nothing like timing when it comes to knocking of a few thousand union jobs that you want to kill anyway.
Re: Re: "Jobless Recovery" a myth Nice prediction. Actually, they were revised upwards. But I am sure there will be ways to spin it in the noble endeavor of engaging in partisan politics. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=3&u=ap/20031125/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_11