Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 188

Thread: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    By Marian Smith, msnbc.com
    LONDON – Before he was elected to the White House, Barack Obama drew 200,000 ecstatic fans during a 2008 visit to Berlin. Analysts predicted he would have easily been elected France's president if he had been a candidate there. And the day after Obama's election triumph, practically every U.K. newspaper splashed his picture across their front pages.
    Europe had fallen in love.
    Two years later, Obama is struggling at home. With the midterms looming, the president's approval rating is at just 47 percent and most indicators suggest that the Democrats will take a hit on Tuesday.
    Many Europeans don't get it.
    "They're very confused as to how [Americans] could vote for Obama and then two years later turn around and vote for a completely different set of policies," Sarah Oates, professor of political communication the University of Glasgow, told msnbc.com.
    When viewed from abroad, Obama's campaign promises of "hope" and "change" left Europeans expecting a fundamental shift in American politics.
    "[People here] are just dismayed," Oates added. "There's a real feeling of ... disappointment that it didn't signal the change they thought it would."
    Plummeting fortunes
    Normally, congressional elections don't resonate much abroad.
    But Europe's love affair with Obama – and interest in his plummeting fortunes – mean that midterms seem to be getting more coverage than usual in the U.K. and across the continent. In the wake of financial crisis, Europeans also wonder how the vote in America will affect the global economy.
    French and British newspapers have been covering the run-up to the vote for weeks, with Tuesday's showdown already occasionally making the front page. In Germany, TV news channels are reporting regularly on U.S. politics and newspaper editorials have focused on the Tea Party movement and the perception that conservatism is growing in America.
    On Thursday, the websites of the BBC and the London-based Guardian, Telegraph and Times newspapers all prominently featured stories about Obama's appearance on "The Daily Show."
    'He's not Mr Miracle'
    But with the economic crisis and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan casting a shadow over his presidency, Obama's reputation has also suffered abroad.
    "He is no longer seen as an icon, but as a politician who is doing his very best," said Christian Malard, senior foreign analyst on France 3 TV. "He is paying the price for the crisis. He's not Mr Miracle, he's not a prophet."
    However, Obama remains broadly well-liked and many Europeans think the disenchantment that many American voters have been expressing is unfair.
    "What he inherited was so enormous that no American president could have fixed it," Manfred Gortemaker, professor of modern history at Germany's University of Potsdam, told msnbc.com.
    Meanwhile, those who got caught up in the "Yes, we can" fever of 2008 simply want to know what will happen to their star.
    "Obama is like a movie character," said Nicole Bacharan, a historian, political analyst and associate researcher at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris. "There is something very romantic about him and his fate is something that people want to know. Why is this young, attractive, very smart president struggling?"
    Tea Party rhetoric
    Many Europeans are also wondering whether the Tea Party is simply a phenomenon born from the financial crisis, or whether its rise signals a broader, lasting, more radical conservative movement.
    "In all the French newspapers and magazines, people are writing, trying to figure it out," Bacharan said.
    While the economic downturn has sparked severe spending cuts from Ireland to Greece and renewed questions over European-style "big government", a Tea Party-like movement hasn't emerged on the continent.
    But Europeans have noticed that some opponents of the Tea Party are being demonized as "socialist". That rhetoric has at times included references to far more sinister chapters in history. An editorial in Germany's Der Spiegel newspaper last week slammed the Tea Party’s references to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany when criticizing the Obama administration’s policies as being irresponsible, flippant and ignorant.
    "The Holocaust was the result of murderous ideological fanaticism of the kind not to be found in leaders forced to face re-election every four years," the newspaper's editorial said. "It is hard to imagine even the most hard-bitten Tea Party activist sincerely believing that President Barack Obama wants to systematically murder over 6 million people like Adolf Hitler did. And that is necessarily the implication."
    Obama's more liberal policies also resonated with many Europeans. With polls suggesting the Democrats could lose control of the House, Professor Oates said the idea that many of his plans could potentially never come into effect baffles some people.
    "It's hard for them to understand the frailty of the American presidency," she said.
    http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...amas-struggles

    Now I'm sure the writers of MSNBC are baffled and dismayed, but how about you Europeans? Are you baffled and dismayed by our utter rejection of the Obama agenda? Did you really think that America was moving left enmass?

    I predicted the best thing for the Republican party would be Obama's election, that is coming to fruition. I also said it would be greatly damaging to the country, and sadly that too has come to fruition with horrible legislation and incredible debt.

    Did any of you Europeans, experts on American politics, see this coming or are you as MSNBC said, baffled and dismayed?
    Last edited by Phier; October 28, 2010 at 07:47 PM.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  2. #2
    Imperial's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Florida, US (wang of America)
    Posts
    3,838

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    America is a Republic. Obama can't do anything without the support of the senate and House of Representatives. Presidents are just figure heads.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Imperial View Post
    Presidents are just figure heads.
    And commander in chief of the military holding the power to veto any congressional decision, decide not to enforce supreme court rulings, etc. That's a pretty powerful figurehead.

  4. #4
    Squiggle's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Canada, Ontario
    Posts
    3,913

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Cant speak for Europeans, but most Canadians are dismayed and baffled. I'm not though, obviously.
    Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
    ― Denis Diderot
    ~
    As for politics, I'm an Anarchist. I hate governments and rules and fetters. Can't stand caged animals. People must be free.
    ― Charlie Chaplin

  5. #5
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Welcome to real world, Europeans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  6. #6

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Heres a NY Times article that is relevant I think...

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    What if a president cut Americans’ income taxes by $116 billion and nobody noticed?

    It is not a rhetorical question. At Pig Pickin’ and Politickin’, a barbecue-fed rally organized here last week by a Republican women’s club, a half-dozen guests were asked by a reporter what had happened to their taxes since President Obama took office.

    “Federal and state have both gone up,” said Bob Paratore, 59, from nearby Charlotte, echoing the comments of others.

    After further prodding — including a reminder that a provision of the stimulus bill had cut taxes for 95 percent of working families by changing withholding rates — Mr. Paratore’s memory was jogged.

    “You’re right, you’re right,” he said. “I’ll be honest with you: it was so subtle that personally, I didn’t notice it.”

    Few people apparently did.

    In a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the midterm elections, their signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.

    In a New York Times/CBS News Poll last month, fewer than one in 10 respondents knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for most Americans. Half of those polled said they thought that their taxes had stayed the same, a third thought that their taxes had gone up, and about a tenth said they did not know. As Thom Tillis, a Republican state representative, put it as the dinner wound down here, “This was the tax cut that fell in the woods — nobody heard it.”

    Actually, the tax cut was, by design, hard to notice. Faced with evidence that people were more likely to save than spend the tax rebate checks they received during the Bush administration, the Obama administration decided to take a different tack: it arranged for less tax money to be withheld from people’s paychecks.

    They reasoned that people would be more likely to spend a small, recurring extra bit of money that they might not even notice, and that the quicker the money was spent, the faster it would cycle through the economy.

    Economists are still measuring how stimulative the tax cut was. But the hard-to-notice part has succeeded wildly. In a recent interview, President Obama said that structuring the tax cuts so that a little more money showed up regularly in people’s paychecks “was the right thing to do economically, but politically it meant that nobody knew that they were getting a tax cut.”

    “And in fact what ended up happening was six months into it, or nine months into it,” the president said, “people had thought we had raised their taxes instead of cutting their taxes.”


    There are plenty of explanations as to why many taxpayers did not feel richer when the cuts kicked in, giving typical families an extra $65 a month. Some people were making less money to begin with, as businesses cut back. Others saw their take-home pay shrink as the amounts deducted for health insurance rose.

    And taxpayers in more than 30 states saw their state taxes rise, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

    That is what happened here in North Carolina. The Treasury Department estimated that the federal tax cut would put $1.7 billion back in the hands of North Carolina taxpayers this year. Last year, though, North Carolina, facing a large budget shortfall, raised a variety of state taxes by roughly a billion dollars.

    “It was a wash,” said Mr. Tillis, the state representative.

    The guests at the Pig Pickin’ rally here could rattle off the names of the House speaker and the Senate majority leader with ease, if with disdain, and were up on many of the political controversies of the day. They studied the campaign fliers at their tables, and pocketed the 1.5-ounce jars of strawberry preserves with special labels urging them to vote for Judge Bill Constangy for Superior Court (“Preserving Justice,” the labels read).

    Many volunteered that they thought the Bush tax cuts should be extended for all taxpayers, even for the wealthy ones whom Mr. Obama would like to exclude. But few had heard that there had also been Obama tax cuts — which will also expire next year unless extended, but have generated far less public debate.

    Bob Deaton, 73, who wore a “Fair Tax” baseball cap, was surprised to hear that there were tax cuts in the $787 billion stimulus bill, which was wildly unpopular with many at the rally even though roughly a third of it was in the form of tax cuts.

    “Tax cuts?” he asked. “Where were the tax cuts?”

    Ron Julian, 50, a Huntersville town commissioner, said he thought his taxes had gone up under Mr. Obama. And Mr. Paratore, a former Hearst executive, said he might have noticed the tax cuts if his paycheck had jumped more in the weeks before he retired last year: “I couldn’t even tell you what it was, to be honest with you.”

    The Obama administration wants to extend the little-noticed tax cut next year. Jason Furman, the deputy director of the National Economic Council, said the administration still believes that changing the withholdings was a more effective form of stimulus than sending out rebate checks would have been.

    “In retrospect, we think that judgment was right,” he said. “It’s harder to predict what’s good for politics. Ultimately, the best thing for politics is going to be helping the economy.”

    But at least one prominent economist is questioning whether the method really was more effective. Joel B. Slemrod, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan, analyzed consumer surveys after the last rebate checks were sent out in 2008 by the Bush administration, and after this tax cut, called Making Work Pay, went into effect under the Obama administration.

    After the 2008 rebates, he found that about a quarter of the households surveyed said they would use the money primarily to increase their spending. After the Obama tax cut took effect, he said, only 13 percent said they would use the money primarily to increase their spending. The Obama administration believes that people did spend the money, and cites analyses calling the cut one of the more effective forms of stimulus.

    Mr. Slemrod said it was not unheard of for voters to miss tax cuts. Just a few years after a 1986 overhaul of the tax system made significant cuts to most people’s taxes, he said, a survey asked people what had happened to their taxes. “Most people didn’t answer that they went down,” he said.

    Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington.



    This is another piece on the same subject, though it is from a partisan perspective. It does add some figures though.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    For an anti-tax group they don't know much about taxes
    On March 16 the tea party crowd showed up for yet another demonstration on Capitol Hill in Washington. Curious about the factual knowledge that these people have regarding the issues they are protesting, my friend David Frum enlisted some interns to interview as many tea partiers as possible on a couple of basic questions. They got 57 responses--a pretty good sized sample from a crowd that numbered between 300 and 500 people. (Survey results are here.)

    The first question that was asked concerned the size of government. Tea partiers were asked how much the federal government gets in taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product. According to Congressional Budget Office data, acceptable answers would be 6.4%, which is the percentage for federal income taxes; 12.7%, which would be for both income taxes and Social Security payroll taxes; or 14.8%, which would represent all federal taxes as a share of GDP in 2009.

    Not everyone follows these numbers closely and tea partiers may have been thinking of figures from a few years ago, before the recession when taxes were higher. According to the CBO, the highest figure for all federal taxes since 1970 came in the year 2000, when they reached 20.6% of GDP. As we know, after that George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress cut federal taxes and they fell to 18.5% of GDP in 2007, before the recession hit, and 17.5% in 2008.

    Tuesday's tea party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times higher than they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median was 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944.

    To follow up, tea partiers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes. The average response was $12,710 and the median was $10,000. In percentage terms, this means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income.


    Of course, it's hard to know what any particular individual or family pays in taxes, but according to the IRS tax tables, a single person with $50,000 in taxable income last year would owe $8,694 in federal income taxes, and a married couple filing jointly would owe $6,669.

    But these numbers are high because to have a taxable income of $50,000, one's gross income would be higher by at least the personal exemption, which is $3,650, and the standard deduction, which is $5,700 for single people and $11,400 for married couples. Owning a home or having children would reduce one's tax burden further.

    According to calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average federal income tax burden of just 1.7%. Those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 have an average burden of 4.2%.

    Even though the tea partiers were specifically asked about federal income taxes, it's possible that they were thinking about other federal taxes as well, such as payroll and excise taxes. According to the JCT, when all federal taxes are included, those earning between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average tax rate of 12.3%, and those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay a rate of 14.5%.

    In short, no matter how one slices the data, the tea party crowd appear to believe that federal taxes are very considerably higher than they actually are, whether referring to total taxes as a share of GDP or in terms of the taxes paid by a typical family.

    Tea party goers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.

    As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

    According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies.

    It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality. Perhaps these people haven't calculated their tax returns for 2009 yet and simply don't know what they owe. Or perhaps they just assume that because a Democrat is president that taxes must have gone up, because that's what Republicans say that Democrats always do. In fact, there hasn't been a federal tax increase of any significance in this country since 1993.

    One other possibility is that taxpayers are operating on the basis of a sophisticated economic theory called "Ricardian Equivalence." According to this theory, budget deficits have no stimulative effect on the economy because taxpayers implicitly discount the future tax increase that will be necessary to pay off the additional debt. People increase their saving now, so the theory posits, in order to prepare for this future tax increase, thus offsetting all of the stimulative effect of the deficits with an equal and contractionary increase in saving.

    While Ricardian Equivalence is a legitimate economic theory that economists continue to debate, one often hears a variation of it on talk radio shows and such, where it is said that deficits are a tax on the economy. The problem is that many people conclude from this arguably true statement that raising taxes to reduce the deficit would in effect constitute a double tax. We're being taxed once by the deficit, people think, so why should they have their taxes raised to reduce it?

    Of course, this is a non sequitur. People can't be taxed twice by the expectation of a tax and again by the actual tax itself. But more importantly, the underlying assumption of Ricardian Equivalence--that taxes will eventually rise to pay off the debt--is now seriously in doubt. Perhaps once it was true when people genuinely cared about a balanced budget. But today's Republicans and tea party members oppose all tax increases for any reason, no matter how big the deficit is. I really believe that many would rather default on the debt than raise taxes by a single penny. If this is true, then Ricardian Equivalence is a dead letter--to the extent that it ever existed at all.

    Probably the simplest motivation the tea partiers have is the one that Howard Beale (actor Peter Finch) gave in the 1976 movie Network. "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more!" he said to cheering crowds. In other words, tea parties just represent unfocused anger at current economic conditions. Those who feel this way have latched on to the tea party movement not because they really believe that their taxes are too high, that taxes are rising or that taxes are at the root of our economic problem. Rather, they have joined because it's the only game in town; the only organized force with at least the potential of bringing about change that might make things better.

    In this sense, the tea parties are simply the latest manifestation of populism, which has arisen periodically throughout American history. In the 19th century populist anger was based in rural America and directed at the banks and railroads as well as government. Populists thought that free coinage of silver, an inflationary policy that would have raised prices for farm commodities, was the solution to their problems in the same way that today's tea party crowd think that the Federal Reserve, bailouts to big businesses and a looming government takeover of the health industry are at the root of our economic malaise. Tax cuts are like free silver--a one-size-fits-all policy response.

    Unfortunately for the tea party populists, there is no evidence in American history that populism has ever had a meaningful effect on policy. Even when the movement had a charismatic and articulate leader in William Jennings Bryan, the populists only elected a handful of members to Congress and never achieved the presidency. One reason is that the major parties co-opted populist issues and leaders, which bought time until the populist impulse burned itself out like a brush fire.

    Whatever the future of the tea party movement in American politics, it's a bad idea for so many participants to operate on the basis of false notions about the burden of federal taxation. It only takes a little bit of time to look at one's tax return to see what one is actually paying the Treasury, calculate the percentage of one's income that goes to taxes, and compare it to what was paid last year and the year before. People may then discover that their anger is misplaced and channel it into areas where it is more likely to bring about positive change.
    Last edited by Sphere; October 28, 2010 at 08:11 PM.

  7. #7
    mrmouth's Avatar flaxen haired argonaut
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    10,741

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sphere View Post
    Heres a NY Times article that is relevant I think...




    This is another piece on the same subject, though it is from a partisan perspective. It does add some figures though.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    For an anti-tax group they don't know much about taxes
    On March 16 the tea party crowd showed up for yet another demonstration on Capitol Hill in Washington. Curious about the factual knowledge that these people have regarding the issues they are protesting, my friend David Frum enlisted some interns to interview as many tea partiers as possible on a couple of basic questions. They got 57 responses--a pretty good sized sample from a crowd that numbered between 300 and 500 people. (Survey results are here.)

    The first question that was asked concerned the size of government. Tea partiers were asked how much the federal government gets in taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product. According to Congressional Budget Office data, acceptable answers would be 6.4%, which is the percentage for federal income taxes; 12.7%, which would be for both income taxes and Social Security payroll taxes; or 14.8%, which would represent all federal taxes as a share of GDP in 2009.

    Not everyone follows these numbers closely and tea partiers may have been thinking of figures from a few years ago, before the recession when taxes were higher. According to the CBO, the highest figure for all federal taxes since 1970 came in the year 2000, when they reached 20.6% of GDP. As we know, after that George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress cut federal taxes and they fell to 18.5% of GDP in 2007, before the recession hit, and 17.5% in 2008.

    Tuesday's tea party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times higher than they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median was 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944.

    To follow up, tea partiers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes. The average response was $12,710 and the median was $10,000. In percentage terms, this means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income.


    Of course, it's hard to know what any particular individual or family pays in taxes, but according to the IRS tax tables, a single person with $50,000 in taxable income last year would owe $8,694 in federal income taxes, and a married couple filing jointly would owe $6,669.

    But these numbers are high because to have a taxable income of $50,000, one's gross income would be higher by at least the personal exemption, which is $3,650, and the standard deduction, which is $5,700 for single people and $11,400 for married couples. Owning a home or having children would reduce one's tax burden further.

    According to calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average federal income tax burden of just 1.7%. Those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 have an average burden of 4.2%.

    Even though the tea partiers were specifically asked about federal income taxes, it's possible that they were thinking about other federal taxes as well, such as payroll and excise taxes. According to the JCT, when all federal taxes are included, those earning between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average tax rate of 12.3%, and those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay a rate of 14.5%.

    In short, no matter how one slices the data, the tea party crowd appear to believe that federal taxes are very considerably higher than they actually are, whether referring to total taxes as a share of GDP or in terms of the taxes paid by a typical family.

    Tea party goers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.

    As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

    According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies.

    It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality. Perhaps these people haven't calculated their tax returns for 2009 yet and simply don't know what they owe. Or perhaps they just assume that because a Democrat is president that taxes must have gone up, because that's what Republicans say that Democrats always do. In fact, there hasn't been a federal tax increase of any significance in this country since 1993.

    One other possibility is that taxpayers are operating on the basis of a sophisticated economic theory called "Ricardian Equivalence." According to this theory, budget deficits have no stimulative effect on the economy because taxpayers implicitly discount the future tax increase that will be necessary to pay off the additional debt. People increase their saving now, so the theory posits, in order to prepare for this future tax increase, thus offsetting all of the stimulative effect of the deficits with an equal and contractionary increase in saving.

    While Ricardian Equivalence is a legitimate economic theory that economists continue to debate, one often hears a variation of it on talk radio shows and such, where it is said that deficits are a tax on the economy. The problem is that many people conclude from this arguably true statement that raising taxes to reduce the deficit would in effect constitute a double tax. We're being taxed once by the deficit, people think, so why should they have their taxes raised to reduce it?

    Of course, this is a non sequitur. People can't be taxed twice by the expectation of a tax and again by the actual tax itself. But more importantly, the underlying assumption of Ricardian Equivalence--that taxes will eventually rise to pay off the debt--is now seriously in doubt. Perhaps once it was true when people genuinely cared about a balanced budget. But today's Republicans and tea party members oppose all tax increases for any reason, no matter how big the deficit is. I really believe that many would rather default on the debt than raise taxes by a single penny. If this is true, then Ricardian Equivalence is a dead letter--to the extent that it ever existed at all.

    Probably the simplest motivation the tea partiers have is the one that Howard Beale (actor Peter Finch) gave in the 1976 movie Network. "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more!" he said to cheering crowds. In other words, tea parties just represent unfocused anger at current economic conditions. Those who feel this way have latched on to the tea party movement not because they really believe that their taxes are too high, that taxes are rising or that taxes are at the root of our economic problem. Rather, they have joined because it's the only game in town; the only organized force with at least the potential of bringing about change that might make things better.

    In this sense, the tea parties are simply the latest manifestation of populism, which has arisen periodically throughout American history. In the 19th century populist anger was based in rural America and directed at the banks and railroads as well as government. Populists thought that free coinage of silver, an inflationary policy that would have raised prices for farm commodities, was the solution to their problems in the same way that today's tea party crowd think that the Federal Reserve, bailouts to big businesses and a looming government takeover of the health industry are at the root of our economic malaise. Tax cuts are like free silver--a one-size-fits-all policy response.

    Unfortunately for the tea party populists, there is no evidence in American history that populism has ever had a meaningful effect on policy. Even when the movement had a charismatic and articulate leader in William Jennings Bryan, the populists only elected a handful of members to Congress and never achieved the presidency. One reason is that the major parties co-opted populist issues and leaders, which bought time until the populist impulse burned itself out like a brush fire.

    Whatever the future of the tea party movement in American politics, it's a bad idea for so many participants to operate on the basis of false notions about the burden of federal taxation. It only takes a little bit of time to look at one's tax return to see what one is actually paying the Treasury, calculate the percentage of one's income that goes to taxes, and compare it to what was paid last year and the year before. People may then discover that their anger is misplaced and channel it into areas where it is more likely to bring about positive change.
    This is what happens when you allow the kings of smear to do what they do completely unmolested.
    The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity

  8. #8

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Quote Originally Posted by BarnabyJones View Post
    This is what happens when you allow the kings of smear to do what they do completely unmolested.
    Yes, while I didn't qualify for the tax cut, thanks for the $400 back in in tiny amounts per week. That really helped out

    The theory was that people would spend that and that they saved the Bush tax cut (oddly I got $600 for that one), the theory turned out to be wrong.

    This doesn't excuse your boy from doing unspeakable things to the debt for almost no economic gain (to the private sector at any rate).

    Lets see a tax cut and spending cut, that would be special.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sphere View Post
    Heres a NY Times article that is relevant I think...
    This is another piece on the same subject, though it is from a partisan perspective. It does add some figures though.
    Sorry, redistributing a collectivised amount of money to cerain interest groups does not a tax cut make.

    But don't allow me to speak out against Imam Obama.

  10. #10
    Brain_in_a_vat's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, England
    Posts
    2,009

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    The main reason he inspired so much attention is because he's black...

    First black president + promise of change = ", that man's going to bring about radical change"

    Unfortunately not. I'm proud to say I wasn't one of the people who fell into that whole "change" circle-jerk. Therefore the answer to your question is no. I'm neither dismayed nor baffled.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    The American political system and culture in general is skewed to the right especially in comparison with other developed Western countries. So when something is considered "left' in America that's usually considered centre in Europe.

    On the other hand, what makes you think Europeans would care if Obama's policies are passed or not?
    [ Under Patronage of Jom ]
    [ "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21 ]

  12. #12

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Mov View Post
    On the other hand, what makes you think Europeans would care if Obama's policies are passed or not?
    People here seem to care quite a bit from the postings, but don't blame me, unless 'you' is aimed as MSNBC, THEY are claiming you are baffled and dismayed, not I.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  13. #13
    TW Bigfoot
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    EARTH
    Posts
    6,040

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Mov View Post
    The American political system and culture in general is skewed to the right especially in comparison with other developed Western countries. So when something is considered "left' in America that's usually considered centre in Europe.
    From the european perspective sure..

    Ive heard many people on this forum for example (not americans) say that most of europe is 'right' or 'centre right' or any of the other crazy ass terms people use today in a vain attempt to label their own positions.

    across the pond, europe is distinctly skewed 'left', in most peoples minds.
    Hell, its called the EUROPEAN UNION for christs sake.

    Personally i think the whole 'left' 'right' 'up' 'down' 'forwards' 'backwards' stuff is just nonsense. meaningless.

  14. #14
    Babur's Avatar ز آفتاب درخشان ستاره می
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Agra,Hindustan
    Posts
    15,405

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Barroso View Post
    across the pond, europe is distinctly skewed 'left', in most peoples minds.
    Hell, its called the EUROPEAN UNION for christs sake.
    not really, traditionally socialist parties were opposed to European integration
    Under the patronage of Gertrudius!

  15. #15
    TW Bigfoot
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    EARTH
    Posts
    6,040

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    not really, traditionally socialist parties were opposed to European integration
    so what? that has to do with an american perception of 'left' and 'right' in europe, how?

  16. #16

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    OH please, don't let the fact that Obama has accomplished much more than many presidencies deter you right wingers from calling him a failure, when all your puppets in the gov went the "just say no" route. There are those of us who won't forget the 8 years of the Bush administrations as quickly as you might hope, and you supposed landslide wins in the midterm won't be quite the landslide you think it will. Sure the democrats will lose seats, and IF they lose the majority, I can gurantee, if republicans don't deliver within their terms they'll be gone as well.

    Winning battles, isn't winning wars.

    Full Disclosure, I'm registered Independent, and I vote for who I think will do best, the campaign during 2008 turned me off to republicans, and these midterm adds haven't helped. How does it feel to be a dying breed? You'll get your victories here and there, but every candidate I've seen from the GOP is either wildely inept.. or... well... that's about all you have.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shep309 View Post
    OH please, don't let the fact that Obama has accomplished much more than many presidencies deter you right wingers from calling him a failure, when all your puppets in the gov went the "just say no" route. There are those of us who won't forget the 8 years of the Bush administrations as quickly as you might hope, and you supposed landslide wins in the midterm won't be quite the landslide you think it will. Sure the democrats will lose seats, and IF they lose the majority, I can gurantee, if republicans don't deliver within their terms they'll be gone as well.

    Winning battles, isn't winning wars.

    Full Disclosure, I'm registered Independent, and I vote for who I think will do best, the campaign during 2008 turned me off to republicans, and these midterm adds haven't helped. How does it feel to be a dying breed? You'll get your victories here and there, but every candidate I've seen from the GOP is either wildely inept.. or... well... that's about all you have.
    Deliver what my angry friend? They only need to deliver a stop to Obama, they will not be able to over ride a veto. What exactly are they suppose to deliver?

    But being you are not a European, or speaking about them, this is a rather off topic rant of yours. Save it for Tuesday.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  18. #18
    Brain_in_a_vat's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, England
    Posts
    2,009

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Europeans generally don't care about Obama or the Republicans and what not. Do you particularly care about British or German politics Phier? Then again American politics can be hilarious and staggeringly stupid sometimes, which is probably the attraction for most Americans, never mind Europeans.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brain_in_a_vat View Post
    Then again American politics can be hilarious and staggeringly stupid sometimes, which is probably the attraction for most Americans, never mind Europeans.
    witchcraft, Nazis, racists, mentally challenged, religious extremists, it has everything
    [ Under Patronage of Jom ]
    [ "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21 ]

  20. #20
    Babur's Avatar ز آفتاب درخشان ستاره می
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Agra,Hindustan
    Posts
    15,405

    Default Re: Europeans, are you really 'Dismayed' and 'Baffled'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brain_in_a_vat View Post
    Europeans generally don't care about Obama or the Republicans and what not. Do you particularly care about British or German politics Phier? Then again American politics can be hilarious and staggeringly stupid sometimes, which is probably the attraction for most Americans, never mind Europeans.

    Indeed it has good entertainment value for those across the Atlantic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Mov View Post
    witchcraft, Nazis, racists, mentally challenged, religious extremists, it has everything
    Obama has been accused of being all those things minus witchcraft .
    Under the patronage of Gertrudius!

Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •