The Republicans have lost their mind

[mazinger_z]

@Biggirl

This has been tried already. It’s called ‘trickle down’ and, as we have seen recently, the only thing trickling down are foreclosures and banks. How many times are we going to go to the same stupid-assed well before we realize that this shit does not fucking work. Especially when these supposed extra investments are going into an even MORE deregulated market that will not or cannot oversee itself.

Insanity, like eleanor said. But keep it up, I can’t wait to see what it’ll be like with all of my possessions in a back of a pick-up travelling the countryside looking for $50 an hour lettuce to pick in my Joad-mobile.

The amount of hyperbole is amazing, but then again this is the pit.

First of all, cutting capital gains tax is not trickle down economics. It’s just a method to increase investment. Decreasing the top income tax rates is trickle down economics.

Second, if it is bonds that are exempt (or have less capital gains tax) and enough of them are bought, then bond price rises (because of increased demand) and then the interest rate falls.

@oy

My problem with the “reduce capital gains tax and stimulate investment” argument (aside from the fact that obviously people do continue to invest when taxes are higher because what else are they going to do with their money?)

There’s property. There’s foreign markets with lower tax rates. They can invest in new business. There’s also hookers and blow. Your idea of “investment” is at the very least, not sophisticated.

is that so much of that money ends up in “financial services,” which is to say things that produce neither goods nor services nor create much of anything in the way of jobs.

Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about? Accountants, bookmakers, IT departments, legal people, all these people work in these large financial institutions, 26,000 people at Lehman Brothers alone would very much like to disagree with you.

@oy

Like these default credit swaps. They add to the economy in bookkeeping money. But they don’t add anything real. And that’s so much of what investment is today. I wish there were a way of separating out investments that were attached to real stuff from investments that weren’t, but of course where you draw the line is extremely fuzzy.

All of these investments which are indeed confusing, are in fact tied to something. A lot of these assets/investments were tied to subprime mortgages and other mortgages tied to a housing bubble which is how we’re in the mess in the first place. It’s not like these investment gurus were telling people to invest in fairy dust – with a bit of risk, enjoy a 10% return. :rolleyes:

Warren Buffet thinks it’s unfair that he pays less as a percentage than his secretary because he derives his income from investments, even though he fails to mention that he has the more inherent risk (assuming that they had equal money, not the billions he owns) because he is risking the capital. Perhaps he should lament a changing of the tax structure, no doubt his investments would also change.

[Voyager]

Besides all the good points made above, when there is a problem with reduced consumption, why send money that will encourage investment? That was why the tax cuts after the bubble were so ineffective. The usual suspects must think businessmen are really stupid, and will build new capacity when what they have is standing idle.

As for spending and tax cuts - I’ll believe tax cutters aren’t in a fantasy land when they agree to cut taxes only after spending is actually cut. Otherwise they are about as realistic as a Communist expecting people to hand over property for the good of the state. (Oh, and we have to go through an election cycle first to make sure the spending cutters don’t get kicked out for not bringing back goodies for their districts.)

[Oy]

@mazinger_z

The amount of hyperbole is amazing, but then again this is the pit.

First of all, cutting capital gains tax is not trickle down economics. It’s just a method to increase investment. Decreasing the top income tax rates is trickle down economics.

Second, if it is bonds that are exempt (or have less capital gains tax) and enough of them are bought, then bond price rises (because of increased demand) and then the interest rate falls.

There’s property. There’s foreign markets with lower tax rates. They can invest in new business. There’s also hookers and blow. Your idea of “investment” is at the very least, not sophisticated.
Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about? Accountants, bookmakers, IT departments, legal people, all these people work in these large financial institutions, 26,000 people at Lehman Brothers alone would very much like to disagree with you.
All of these investments which are indeed confusing, are in fact tied to something. A lot of these assets/investments were tied to subprime mortgages and other mortgages tied to a housing bubble which is how we’re in the mess in the first place. It’s not like these investment gurus were telling people to invest in fairy dust – with a bit of risk, enjoy a 10% return. :rolleyes:

Warren Buffet thinks it’s unfair that he pays less as a percentage than his secretary because he derives his income from investments, even though he fails to mention that he has the more inherent risk (assuming that they had equal money, not the billions he owns) because he is risking the capital. Perhaps he should lament a changing of the tax structure, no doubt his investments would also change.

We have one of the lower tax rates in the world, as I understand it. There aren’t that many foreign markets to go to. How many hooker and how much blow can a person or a family do? And investing in new business would be great!

I don’t have time to find cites now (off to have dinner with Mom), but my gut tells me (and yes, that’s all I have at the moment) that a similar amount of investment in something tangible would create more jobs than the financial services market.

From what I’ve heard, it’s exactly like these investment gurus were telling people to invest in fairy dust – with a bit of risk, enjoy a 10% return. That’s what everyone was telling everyone else (or at least the way everyone was behaving), and that’s the problem.

In what way does Warren Buffets risk merit lower tax? He gets a higher return on investment because of higher risk. He doesn’t also need lower taxes.

[Fish]

@hawthorne

Better yet, The Walking Dude, I’m a professional economist who’s published tax policy articles in good journals and taught public finance courses and… you know less than nothing.

Some times there is nothing more beautiful than a resounding credential smackdown on the SDMB.

Lesson to be learned: if you plan to spout off that which you know not, be prepared to be schooled by somebody who knows it well.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Oy

I’m not trying to be pugnacious; I honestly don’t know the answer to this. How come the estimated value of these is $40-$70 trillion and it would appear that they are the primary thing that’s going down the tubes? Or at least so I recall from another thread, and it was backed up by a cite from at least one mainstream economist.

Because it’s like insurance; it is insurance, essentially. AIG was more or less insuring loan servicing agents against their own bad judgment- the loan company paid a small service fee to AIG, and in the event that a given loan defaulted, AIG assumed the debt and paid the original lender (or whover owned the loan at the time of default) a prorated portion of the debt.

In principle, it was a smart idea. High rates of default on home loans are unusual, but not unheard of. If a small lender- say, one with a thousand outstanding mortgages- had an unusually high portion of its borrowers default, it might be in serious cashflow trouble.

AIG, on the other hand, with virtually limitless pockets, could absorb a hit like that without flinching. And, of course, in the much more likely event that default rates stayed low, they’d make lots of money for essentially doing nothing.

The really big problem is that the CDS contracts required AIG to provide collateral to the CDS buyers if its credit rating dropped below a preset level. Since AIG was absolutely huge (again, able to absorb the hit of a down market), this was considered practically a blue-moon type scenario.

Then 2007 happened, and the subprime crisis, and all of a sudden AIG was actually paying out on lots of those CDS policies. Shelling out so much money meant its cash reserves shrank, which meant its credit rating dropped, which meant it suddenly had to post collateral for billions of dollars’ worth of policies- which it no longer had.

And so, EPIC FAIL.

[Long_Time_First_Time]

There is an explanation herehttp://thewritingonthewal.net/ that sums it up quite nicely.

Most important bits:

Joe goes to the track and bets $2 on a horse.

Two guys standing nearby get into a discussion and Fred says to Sam, “I’ll bet you $5 that Joe wins his bet.”

Next to them are Bill and Bob. Bill says: “I’ll bet you $10 that Fred welshes on his bet if he loses.”

Next to them is Sally. Sally says: “For $3 I’ll guarantee to Bill that if Bob fails to pay off, I’ll make good on the bet.”

Sally then goes to Mary and borrows the $7 needed in case she has to ever pay off and promises to pay back $8. She doesn’t expect to every have to pay since she believes Bob will always make good. So she expects to net $2 no matter what happens to Joe.

A quick calculation indicates that there is now 2+5+10+3+7 = $27 riding on the outcome of the horse race.

Question how much has been “invested” in the horse race?

Answer:

$50,000 by the owner of the horse who is expecting to recoup his investment from the winnings of the horse and other future deals. Everyone else is gambling, not investing.

[mazinger_z]

@Oy

We have one of the lower tax rates in the world, as I understand it.

We also have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. I’m surprised so many companies continue to do business here. If corporations had lower taxes, they could offer more dividends which will increase demand for its stock, which will increase capital and help keep the economy running. Or, they can take the money not paid to tax and grow their business, take on more workers, increase capital expenditures, etc. Or, worse yet, they can save it in a treasury fund, managed by the internal treasury people or investment/accounting firms, which again creates more jobs and keeps the economy moving right along.

I don’t have time to find cites now (off to have dinner with Mom), but my gut tells me (and yes, that’s all I have at the moment) that a similar amount of investment in something tangible would create more jobs than the financial services market.

Tangible? What, like construction and manufacturing? The US economy is and has been for a long time now a service industry. Our standard of living is so high now that we are automatically at a disadvantage because our labor rates are so high. You probably think we’re lacking a strong union, too. Honestly, you just do not understand… We have a massive comparative advantage in the service markets. Other than capital infrastructure maintenance, there is little reason why we should be doing something that a worker in a third world living standard can do more cheaply.

From what I’ve heard, it’s exactly like these investment gurus were telling people to invest in fairy dust – with a bit of risk, enjoy a 10% return. That’s what everyone was telling everyone else (or at least the way everyone was behaving), and that’s the problem.

The problem is many fold, but for the most part it is a combination of a housing bubble, and government intrusion in the markets (particularly FNM’s ability to create derivatives off its mortgages and buying it from itself). There are other reasons, but they stem from these main causes, and it’s late, I’m trying to get home this weekend.

In what way does Warren Buffets risk merit lower tax? He gets a higher return on investment because of higher risk. He doesn’t also need lower taxes.

He doesn’t need lower taxes? Because he can afford it right? Take from the wealthy?? Is that the principles that America is founded on? Buffet has more risk because he has more loss at stake. 1) If his stock suddenly tank, he loses value and/or he loses dividends (most likely both). His secretary just logs in hours and takes home a paycheck. If her job is lost, she has transition costs to find a new job, but in the mean time, does not pay FICA, SS, or Medicare/Medicaid, and she collects unemployment (though may have to pay state income tax). Meanwhile, if Buffet’s company goes under, then he loses his entire investment, and has a paltry $3000 capital gains loss to look forward to. 2) As an investor, even the .01 shareholders on sharebuilder own a part of that company invested in. The earnings of that company have already been taxed; i.e. the shareholders already have been taxed; i.e. the risk was taken (invested), the rewards were reaped, and taxes get paid. When the shareholder decides to claim his rewards, he should not be taxed again. Debatable, yes, but one that is argued up and down Congress for a long time. 15% seems fair given the risks involved.

[Scylla]

@MichaelQReilly

Sweet fuckity fuck. So just to refresh everyone, under the financially prudent Bush tax cuts the capital gains tax was lowered to 15% percent. What does this mean? It means anyone who primarily derives their income from wages (and that includes a lot of people making 6 figures too) pays a least double the tax rate of the richest Americans who primarily derive their income from stock, hedge funds, and the like.

No. It means you have such a bad understanding of finances and taxes that you are unqualified to have an opinion in these matters. Fortunately this highly qualifies you as a liberal wingnut!

According to 2008 tax rates the Federal tax bracket is not double the capital gains rate of 15% until a single taxpayer is earning $164,000 and a married couple is earning $200,300. All income earned below those levels is taxed at lower tax rates. A marginal tax rate where a taxpayer was averaging 30% on every dollar would not actually occur until significantly higher levels of income. What this actually means is that the capital gains tax rate is in line generally with the tax rates of people earning $32,000 or less or married folks earning $65,000 or less.

Also asinine is your assumption that the rich derive their income primarily from capitol gains. In most markets and especially this one, this is simply not the case. Income based portfolios usually derive their income from income based securites, like bonds, which pay interest. Interest is taxable as regular income in most circumstances.

Apparently not satisfied with this royal fucking of average American taxpayers, the moron wing of the GOP is now trying to lower the capital gains tax further as a part the bail-out package. According to these blatant thieves, lowering the capital gains tax will somehow encourage more investment in the shaken markets. Because, you know, people wouldn’t invest their money otherwise.:rolleyes: I mean, seriously, do these jackasses think the American public is this stupid? Or is it just that these ass fucks are so besotted by uber-capitalism and dumb ass libertarian ideals that they are in effect trying to exacerbate unbridled greed, which is what got us into this mess in the first place. Honestly, I almost pissed myself when I head this plan. What a stupid fucking moronic idea and proof of how little the GOP cares for anyone but their corporate paymasters and ignorant fucking religious zealots.

I think the problem isn’t that we think your stupid. I think the problem is that we are giving you credit for more intelligence than is warranted.

The individual investor who posesses a concentrated position in a single security that they have accumulated over a long period of time is a common one. The typical scenario is you go to work for PPL for 50 years, and you put money in the stock plan, a little off of each paycheck. When you’re done with your 50 years of repairing power lines you now have $500,000 worth of PPL stock, the significant portion of your net worth.

If you sell it, you will have to give a large chunk of it to the government in the form of taxes. If you hold it until you die, there are no capital gains taxes. So, you don’t sell it. Something terrible happens to PPL and you lose your whole net worth. This could have happened with WAMU today, AIG, Lehman, RAD, Enron, or any of hundreds of companies in recent history. Lowering the capital gains tax encourages diversification of concentrated positions. There is an old saying in the investment community that speaks to this: “Averaging down killed more Jews than Hitler, and waiting for the Capitol gains tax cut killed more Christians than the Lions of Rome.”
When you come back try not to be so ignorant.

[The_Walking_Dude]

Wow, I’m a bit surprised that my post created such a furor. Most of the responses are fairly redundant, so I think I can reply to all of them with three simple thoughts.

First, thank you. I’ve apparently said a lot more than I thought I did with my posts. Either you folks are really good at reading between the lines or half of the ideas attributed to me here I never said nor have I implied. Actually more than half. Almost all of the replies here can fall under this category or a simple disagreement of economic theory, with a good bit of me-bashing thrown in for good measure. That takes care of a good percentage of the replies.

Second, not a bloody one of you can attest to, or even guess at my credentials or resources. Those being enough economics courses to graduate, although not in economics, with a business degree from one of the top 100 business schools in the US as well as The Walking Gal. She is currently taking graduate level economics courses at said college, and confirms what I have stated.

Third, I refuse to argue economic policy and theory with anyone. It can only devolve, as seems to already be the case. I have learned what I learned, you have learned what you learned. Very little of it works that well in practice, I won’t even argue that strenuously that my ideas will work. There are too many variables, it would be utterly pointless. As with many things, you have your informed opinion and I have my informed(and yes, it is informed) opinion. We will have to agree to disagree.

Fourth, I made a mistake. I woke up this morning, read this post and became instantly annoyed. My personal views aside, I’m getting bloody tired of all of the Republican bashing on this board, it has become rather gross. Add an early morning, my annoyance at the extreme slant of the SDMB, and the fact that I disagree with the OP and you get my post. It was poorly worded and I shouldn’t have made a personal attack on the OP. For this I apologize. As for the rest, I stand by my comments and by my view of the economy, the government, and what will make it all work.

[Dangerosa]

@The_Walking_Dude

Second, not a bloody one of you can attest to, or even guess at my credentials or resources. Those being enough economics courses to graduate, although not in economics, with a business degree from one of the top 100 business schools in the US as well as The Walking Gal. She is currently taking graduate level economics courses at said college, and confirms what I have stated.

No, but hawthorne and RickJay have been here for years with thousands of posts. To the best of my knowledge, they have a track record of being who they claim to be. You’ve been here months with less than a hundred posts - whose creditability do you think we will rank higher?

[The_Walking_Dude]

@Dangerosa

No, but hawthorne and RickJay have been here for years with thousands of posts. To the best of my knowledge, they have a track record of being who they claim to be. You’ve been here months with less than a hundred posts - whose creditability do you think we will rank higher?

Well, over a year anyways. I’m mostly a lurker, as is obvious by my post count. That being said, I understand your argument. There are only a few people on the SDMB that know me and a few of them know that my stated credentials are true. You do make a good point though, and may feel free to disbelieve or be skeptical of me. I can only say that my previous post was truthful, and hope that you take that on good faith.

[Dangerosa]

@The_Walking_Dude

Well, over a year anyways. I’m mostly a lurker, as is obvious by my post count. That being said, I understand your argument. There are only a few people on the SDMB that know me and a few of them know that my stated credentials are true. You do make a good point though, and may feel free to disbelieve or be skeptical of me. I can only say that my previous post was truthful, and hope that you take that on good faith.

It wasn’t what I learned in my Econ classes either (I also have a B-School degree), nor what my local Econ PhD (a friend) tells me is common Econ theory - so honestly, I’m weighting the other arguments higher since they have the force of multiple people I trust behind them, plus my own reading on the topic.

[The_Walking_Dude]

@Dangerosa

It wasn’t what I learned in my Econ classes either (I also have a B-School degree), nor what my local Econ PhD (a friend) tells me is common Econ theory - so honestly, I’m weighting the other arguments higher since they have the force of multiple people I trust behind them, plus my own reading on the topic.

Is fine. I think it will help, not solve everything mind you, but help. You don’t, sounds perfectly great to me. I’m mostly kicking myself for getting involved in the thread at all. I have mostly avoided political and economic threads here, even if you are in the majority it is generally a bad idea to mess in. I suppose that is what happens when you read the SDMB before your morning caffeine infusion/shower/whatever it takes.

[TVeblen]

@The Walking Dude

My personal views aside, I’m getting bloody tired of all of the Republican bashing on this board, it has become rather gross. Add an early morning, my annoyance at the extreme slant of the SDMB, and the fact that I disagree with the OP and you get my post.

Anybody who hasn’t made at least one post only to regret it later hasn’t really been trying.

If I may interject a slight caveat…I’m pretty tired of the ‘so-liberal SDMB is mean to conservatives’ thing. A lot of people, myself included, have been very critical of Rove/Shrub’s dishonesty, character assassinations and incompetence. Rove/Shrub are not patterns for conservatism; far from it, in fact.

Sticking just to economic issues for the purposes of this thread, were you angry at all during Shrub’s “the economy is falling, the economy is falling!” speech the other night? I’m a moderate and an Independent and I was flat-out furious. That weasel has been president for 8 fucking years but blamed everyone and everything else for the economic free fall.. He accepted absolutely NO–none, nada, zip, zilch–responsibility for the situation, not personally, not for his administration, not any possible governmental role, a blank face and a blank stone wall.

That type of arrogant denial of even basic accountability makes a lot of people mad, some of them Republicans. Of course a lot of factors played into the prolonged economic implosion, and he couldn’t control all of them. But the stupid little bastard was in a position of huge influence. It’s worse than disingenuous for him to point fingers everywhere, anywhere else. Key players within his own party are defecting, not from the GOP, but from Rove/Shrub’s emperor-isn’t-naked bunker.

Frankly I’m much encouraged that some in the GOP are finally splitting away from the assholes who’ve quite effectively hijacked the party for the past decade. It’s long overdue and may be the start of healing for conservatism in this country, IMO.

I’ll get off my soapbox now. But I’ll never understand why Republicans aren’t the angriest right now–at those who made a mockery of the GOP instead of their standard political opponents.

[eleanorigby]

Walking Dude–I have no dog in this fight. My claim to economic savvy is having grown up across the street from Beryl Sprinkle when he lived in Illinois. But seriously, what does your wife/significant other/GF/whathaveyou have to do with anything? I have someone here in the room right now who would agree that I’m super intelligent, very good looking and just a good person all around… That would be my cat, but still.

General remarks:

Bottom line for me, wading through the default claim swaps and the sub-prime stuff and the capital gains nonsense etc–why, WHY would anyone agree to just hand over any amount of money, which has been noted here to be an arbitrary number, to people who don’t want oversight, review or even our opinions on what should be done with it? If this is how Wall St does business, no wonder we’re fucked unto the Lord.
I’m an idiot, but I’m no fool. I am not about to countenance some entitled cowboys to take our money and save Wall St firms that did this to themselves and us, ANd do whatever they want with it and not even have to report back to us about it. See Jon Stewart’s skit with him being a loan officer for more, if needed.
We middle class folk (most of us here) work hard for our money–why are we left holding a baby we never asked for? Why should we stand for it? Oh, the country will implode if we don’t. Really? Seems to be imploding fairly well anyway. How many times have I heard “this is the last shake up on the Street” in the past year? “We’ve reached the bottom of the mortgage crisis now.” BS-- these ripples will continue for months, if not years. You experts have lost most credibility with me.
Unfortunately, it’s like being stranded on a desert island and you need your appendix out and all you have is an alcoholic doctor who’s got the shakes. He messed up and killed the only other survivor and so now, it’s you and him. You don’t like him; you don’t respect him; you don’t want to have anything to do with him, but he’s the only one who can find the appendix and take it out. IOW, you’re stuck and screwed and all you can hope for is that he doesn’t kill you or leave you permanently maimed.

Bush and his silly scare tactics is just a symptom. Hey, let’s deregulate the shit out everything! It’s bound to work, sooner or later. I understand that too much regulation CAN stifle markets, but the lessons of unfettered capitalism seem to escape Wall St types. Some regulation is needed, IMO. I do not know which is best. For that, we need experts. I don’t consider Bush et al experts in the least.
What amazes me is how perplexed Wall St and this admin is that the Little Guy has finally balked at this.

You can say I don’t understand high finance and you’d be right. I get that we have no real choice, given the size of the problem. But I do understand upright business dealings, greed (hell, avarice), shameful ineptitude, and yes, fraud. To have perpetuated a mess of this magnitude augers either gross incompetence or outright fraud. I’d like for some of these Wall St “men” to take a walk of shame. It might act as a deterrent to future hot shots.

I swear if any of them get golden parachutes I will take to the streets and become a full blown ranting socialist. Greed and poor judgement on both the financial and political fronts got us here. As the GOP said to retired Nixon when he wanted to help during election cycles, “no thanks, you’ve done enough.” I don’t want more of the same. Same isn’t working for me. I doubt it’s working for anyone here.

[The_Walking_Dude]

@eleanorigby

Walking Dude–I have no dog in this fight. My claim to economic savvy is having grown up across the street from Beryl Sprinkle when he lived in Illinois. But seriously, what does your wife/significant other/GF/whathaveyou have to do with anything? I have someone here in the room right now who would agree that I’m super intelligent, very good looking and just a good person all around… That would be my cat, but still.

What’s wrong with that? I find that cats are a wonderful judge of character, after all, mine adore me. I may have been unclear, but I was trying to point out that my wife, who is currently in the second year of her graduate studies, is currently taking very high level economics courses and that I had checked with her to make sure I wasn’t completely messing up the theory. It has been several years since my econ courses and I will admit to being a bit rusty.

[elucidator]

Dr. Phil here. Your wife misinformed you so that you would embarrass yourself in front of sarcastic strangers. You have issues. Send me some money, and I’ll help you with them.

[hawthorne]

It’s a day later and I regret posting that I’m somehow an authority on economic matters. I have said previously that I am an economist, but have usually tried to make my arguments stand or fall by themselves. I think that’s the right way to do it and am sorry I didn’t this time.

I used to have the time to post about economic matters in sufficient detail to make that approach work. Now I don’t and I mostly have to stay out of economics threads because I can’t do a proper job in them. That pisses me off occasionally and I let it show in this thread. So sorry about that.

[eleanorigby]

@The_Walking_Dude

What’s wrong with that? I find that cats are a wonderful judge of character, after all, mine adore me. I may have been unclear, but I was trying to point out that my wife, who is currently in the second year of her graduate studies, is currently taking very high level economics courses and that I had checked with her to make sure I wasn’t completely messing up the theory. It has been several years since my econ courses and I will admit to being a bit rusty.

There’s no credence to it. For all I know, your wife is taking Home Economic classes. Seriously, anyone can claim to have anybody in the computer room agreeing with them re a topic. Why lookee here! I got me Bill Clinton and Rosa Parks (oops–she’s dead).
I’m sure your wife is doing what you say she is etc, but that she thinks you’re spot on is irrelevant for Dope purposes. (I point this out because someone else–not me–will somebody tear strips off you for doing this. Hell, we have some Dopers who won’t take a print cite: if you can’t link to your support, you’re screwed. I don’t agree with that stance, but “my buddy here says I’m right” won’t earn you any points in the Pit. It will get you laughed out of GD.

Word to the wise.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

This just in…