Joe Biden 2021

[DDD Dad 14,251]

It just feels nice to be thought of.

She wasn’t talking about you.

[safe sex 11,678]

I mean you're right, I wasn't talking about WWS, but it does apply to him in the same way. I just feel kind of sad about him, though, because he once had the curiosity and chance to be a better person but then decided to go all in on being regressive. 

[DDD Dad 14,251]

I mean you're right, I wasn't talking about WWS, but it does apply to him in the same way. I just feel kind of sad about him, though, because he once had the curiosity and chance to be a better person but then decided to go all in on being regressive. 

True but I decided not to point that part out. It’s me being my kinder, gentler self.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

6 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

I mean you're right, I wasn't talking about WWS, but it does apply to him in the same way. I just feel kind of sad about him, though, because he once had the curiosity and chance to be a better person but then decided to go all in on being regressive. 

Never underestimate the power of the dark side. 

Anger, fear, and aggression are seductive sirens to many. 

[workswithseed 2,036]

9 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Never underestimate the power of the dark side. 

Anger, fear, and aggression are seductive sirens to many. 

I mean we all have those, it's only bad if you just let it consume you.

Also

Edited October 2, 2021 by workswithseed

[washparkhorn 9,935]

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

― Friedrich W. Nietzsche

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Get em Joe.

[atomheartbevo 89,428]

NASCAR fans don't like Joe Biden for some reason.  

 

[Js1 85,109]

Uh wow. 

this is why Twitter journalism sucks. Trying to be the first to make a joke and whoops it’s where his son is buried. 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Not just his son.



And then she attempted to fix it and well……..

[DonkeyCigars 144]

22 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

NASCAR fans don't like Joe Biden for some reason.  

 

Crazy

[Incredulity 11,564]

[aggie08 21,432]

Imagine the billboard if he had invited them to the White House!

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

That's a real hurr durr.

Hardly anyone argues against leaving.  By leaving, any realist knew the Taliban was "coming back" (quotes there because they never left and were never far from power).  Two weeks, two months, two years.  It was gonna happen.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

On 9/30/2021 at 2:28 PM, babysdaddy said:

Debasement of the US Dollar is clearly a goal of the government because debt is static and 'paying it back' (won't ever happen) is just adjusting the ratio of debt/gdp. 

As long gdp grows in nominal terms then our debt ratio becomes smaller or grows less fast. 

Over the past decade, debt and deficit spending have not impacted interest rates. If they don't matter, then Washpark is right in that the $3.5T number really doesn't cost that much to finance. 

That also brings in another thought in that if debt and deficit spending do not matter, then why levy income taxes at all? 

In the battle against inflation, this economic tool is strong lever to drain excess consumption/demand (sop up the excess liquidity) from the system. Drains, if you will, to keep this hydraulic neoliberal economic machine humming along efficiently. 

Just one of many other inflation fighting tools available to Congress and the Fed. 

After all, the spice must flow. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by washparkhorn
free your mind. and be nice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7iQbBbMAFE

[babysdaddy 2,718]

So your argument is that when inflation is running hot, raise income taxes to reduce consumption? Has that ever been the reason for income tax increases? 

Let's presume that is true, then would keeping tax rates across the board at zero and if inflation is increasing, make taxes dynamic work?  Or have sales taxes be dynamic based on that individual goods year over year price change?

[elfenix 34,171]

2 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

So your argument is that when inflation is running hot, raise income taxes to reduce consumption? Has that ever been the reason for income tax increases? 

Let's presume that is true, then would keeping tax rates across the board at zero and if inflation is increasing, make taxes dynamic work?  Or have sales taxes be dynamic based on that individual goods year over year price change?

you know we have a graduated income tax system, don't you?

[babysdaddy 2,718]

40 minutes ago, elfenix said:

you know we have a graduated income tax system, don't you?

I'm aware.  He is claiming that income taxes are a lever used to drain liquidity and reduce consumption.  That has, as far as I know, never been an argument used to raise taxes. 

[elfenix 34,171]

I'm aware.  He is claiming that income taxes are a lever used to drain liquidity and reduce consumption.  That has, as far as I know, never been an argument used to raise taxes. 

And I'm telling you we already have dynamic taxation because we have a graduated income tax system.

This is standard Keynesian anti-cyclical fiscal policy that we learned in high school.

Politicians aren't going to say it cuz politicians aren't entirely fucking stupid.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

1 hour ago, babysdaddy said:

I'm aware.  He is claiming that income taxes are a lever used to drain liquidity and reduce consumption.  That has, as far as I know, never been an argument used to raise taxes. 

You asked for a purpose/use for taxes in the current system.

• They are used to drain liquidity from the system (calm inflation by reducing aggregate demand).
• Taxes drive use of the currency, as those obligations are payable in USD only.
• Eliminating taxation (federal) would increase the money supply by ~20% (inflationary). 

The fundamental point, as you recognized, is that income taxes do not fund the government. Creation of money by the Fed (with the resulting multiplier effects) funds public expenditures. 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by washparkhorn

[washparkhorn 9,935]

This is not a new argument.  Beardsley Ruml (Fed) 1946, American Affairs magazine (January 1946):

TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE

Mr. Ruml read this paper before the American Bar Association during the last year of the war [World War II]. It attracted then less attention than it deserved and is even more timely now, with the tax structure undergoing change for peacetime. His thesis is that given (1) control of a central banking system and (2) an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. All taxation, therefore, should be regarded from the point of view of social and economic consequences. 

Spoiler

The superior position of public government over private business is nowhere more clearly evident than in government’s power to tax business. Business gets its many rule-making powers from public government. Public government sets the limits to the exercise of these rule-making powers of business, and protects the freedom of business operations within this area of authority. Taxation is one of the limitations placed by government on the power of business to do what it pleases.

There is nothing reprehensible about this procedure. The business that is taxed is not a creature of flesh and blood, it is not a citizen. It has no voice in how it shall be governed — nor should it. The issues in the taxation of business are not moral issues, but are questions of practical effect: What will get the best results? How should business be taxed so that business will make its greatest contribution to the common good?

It is sometimes instructive when faced with alternatives to ask the underlying question. If we are to understand the problems involved in the taxation of business, we must first ask: “Why does the government need to tax at all?” This seems to be a simple question, but, as is the case with simple questions, the obvious answer is likely to be a superficial one. The obvious answer is, of course, that taxes provide the revenue which the government needs in order to pay its bills.

It Happened

If we look at the financial history of recent years it is apparent that nations have been able to pay their bills even though their tax revenues fell short of expenses. These countries whose expenses were greater than their receipts from taxes paid their bills by borrowing the necessary money. The borrowing of money, therefore, is an alternative which governments use to supplement the revenues from taxation in order to obtain the necessary means for the payment of their bills.

A government which depends on loans and on the refunding of its loans to get the money it requires for its operations is necessarily dependent on the sources from which the money can be obtained. In the past, if a government persisted in borrowing heavily to cover its expenditures, interest rates would get higher and higher, and greater and greater inducements would have to be offered by the government to the lenders. These governments finally found that the only way they could maintain both their sovereign independence and their solvency was to tax heavily enough to meet a substantial part of their financial needs, and to be prepared — if placed under undue pressure — to tax to meet them all.

The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.

The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks.

The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.

<Free of the Money Market

Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.

The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.

What Taxes Are Really For

>1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;

2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;

3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;

4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.

In the recent past, we have used our federal tax program consciously for each of these purposes. In serving these purposes, the tax program is a means to an end. The purposes themselves are matters of basic national policy which should be established, in the first instance, independently of any national tax program.

Among the policy questions with which we have to deal are these:

Do we want a dollar with reasonably stable purchasing power over the years?

Do we want greater equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone?

Do we want to subsidize certain industries and certain economic groups?

Do we want the beneficiaries of certain federal activities to be aware of what they cost?

These questions are not tax questions; they are questions as to the kind of country we want and the kind of life we want to lead. The tax program should be a means to an agreed end. The tax program should be devised as an instrument, and it should be judged by how well it serves its purpose.

By all odds, the most important single purpose to be served by the imposition of federal taxes is the maintenance of a dollar which has stable purchasing power over the years. Sometimes this purpose is stated as “the avoidance of inflation”; and without the use of federal taxation all other means of stabilization, such as monetary policy and price controls and subsidies, are unavailing. All other means, in any case, must be integrated with federal tax policy if we are to have tomorrow a dollar which has a value near to what it has today.

The war has taught the government, and the government has taught the people, that federal taxation has much to do with inflation and deflation, with the prices which have to be paid for the things that are bought and sold. If federal taxes are insufficient or of the wrong kind, the purchasing power in the hands of the public is likely to be greater than the output of goods and services with which this purchasing demand can be satisfied. If the demand becomes too great, the result will be a rise in prices, and there will be no proportionate increase in the quantity of things for sale. This will mean that the dollar is worth less than it was before — that is inflation. On the other hand, if federal taxes are too heavy or are of the wrong kind, effective purchasing power in the hands of the public will be insufficient to take from the producers of goods and services all the things these producers would like to make. This will mean widespread unemployment.

The dollars the government spends become purchasing power in the hands of the people who have received them. The dollars the government takes by taxes cannot be spent by the people, and, therefore, these dollars can no longer be used to acquire the things which are available for sale. Taxation is, therefore, an instrument of the first importance in the administration of any fiscal and monetary policy.

To Distribute the Wealth

The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income. It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures.

The third reason for federal taxes is to provide a subsidy for some industrial or economic interest. The most conspicuous example of these taxes is the tariffs on imports. Originally, taxes of this type were imposed to serve a double purpose since, a century and a half ago, the national government required revenues in order to pay its bills. Today, tariffs on imports are no longer needed for revenue. These taxes are nothing more than devices to provide subsidies to selected industries; their social purpose is to provide a price floor above which a domestic industry can compete with goods which can be produced abroad and sold in this country more cheaply except for the tariff protection. The subsidy is paid, not at the port of entry where the imported goods are taxed, but in the higher price level for all goods of the same type produced and sold at home.

The fourth purpose served by federal taxes is to assess, directly and visibly, the costs of certain benefits. Such taxation is highly desirable in order to limit the benefits to amounts which the people who benefit are willing to pay. The most conspicuous examples of such measures are the social security benefits, old-age and unemployment insurance. The social purposes of giving such benefits and of assessing specific taxes to meet the costs are obvious. Unfortunately and unnecessarily, in both cases, the programs have involved staggering deflationary consequences as a result of the excess of current receipts over current disbursements.

I hope that helps.

Edited October 5, 2021 by washparkhorn
By the way, Ruhl (NY Fed chair 1946) used this argument against illogical corporate taxes.

[babysdaddy 2,718]

 I've never heard anyone anywhere claim taxes are anything other than revenue to fund the government so appreciate your responses.  

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

You asked for a purpose/use for taxes in the current system.

• They are used to drain liquidity from the system (calm inflation by reducing aggregate demand).
• Taxes drive use of the currency, as those obligations are payable in USD only.
• Eliminating taxation (federal) would increase the money supply by ~20% (inflationary). 

The fundamental point, as you recognized, is that income taxes do not fund the government. Creation of money by the Fed (with the resulting multiplier effects) funds public expenditures. 

 

 

[babysdaddy 2,718]

2 hours ago, elfenix said:

And I'm telling you we already have dynamic taxation because we have a graduated income tax system.

This is standard Keynesian anti-cyclical fiscal policy that we learned in high school.

Politicians aren't going to say it cuz politicians aren't entirely fucking stupid.

[Neonmoon 38,127]

17 hours ago, Incredulity said:

 

16 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Imagine the billboard if he had invited them to the White House!

[Willfully Horn 7,913]

21 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

 

Message boards, how do they work?

[Satoshi 129]

4 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

So your argument is that when inflation is running hot, raise income taxes to reduce consumption? Has that ever been the reason for income tax increases? 

Let's presume that is true, then would keeping tax rates across the board at zero and if inflation is increasing, make taxes dynamic work?  Or have sales taxes be dynamic based on that individual goods year over year price change?

That’s the MMT approach to inflation control 

[Satoshi 129]

Seriously, why isn’t he read in on this stuff? Who’s making all the decisions? I realize these are prolonged negotiations but I would think he should be involved in the final say about big strategic moves. 
 

 

[Js1 85,109]

God damn, your fake concern trolling, GRUHorn, isn't even clever anymore. 

[David Dennison 18,656]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

God damn, your fake concern trolling, GRUHorn, isn't even clever anymore. 

If that's the best they can do . . . 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,843]

1 hour ago, Satoshi said:

Seriously, why isn’t he read in on this stuff? Who’s making all the decisions? I realize these are prolonged negotiations but I would think he should be involved in the final say about big strategic moves. 
 

 

[babysdaddy 2,718]

20 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

 

 

[David Dennison 18,656]

So like every presidential poll for the last 12 years.

Man lands on moon!

[Trey3216 15,325]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So like every presidential poll for the last 12 years.

Man lands on moon!

so this is good?  

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[David Dennison 18,656]

1 hour ago, Trey3216 said:

so this is good?  

 

 

It's great if you're a Republican. 

Then it will be great if you're a Democrat.

Rinse, repeat.

This is how American politics will be until the republic collapses.

[Js1 85,109]

Look at all the concerned trolls! 

[Trey3216 15,325]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Look at all the concerned trolls! 

It’s embarrassing for our country to have the two fuckwads we’ve had the last two cycles.  One can’t keep his hands or comments to himself, the next can’t keep his hands out of the jello and his comments coherent.   It’s a Greek tragedy wrapped in an Orwellian acid flash.    

[Bullneck 18,987]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

It’s embarrassing for our country to have the two fuckwads we’ve had the last two cycles.  One can’t keep his hands or comments to himself, the next can’t keep his hands out of the jello and his comments coherent.   It’s a Greek tragedy wrapped in an Orwellian acid flash.    

Wut?

[Js1 85,109]

Just now, Bullneck said:

Wut?

Trolling. Both sides bad! 

[Bullneck 18,987]

4 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

so this is good?  

 

 

 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Both sides bad! 

I mean, according to the polls.

Its just each side is bad to the opposite groups of people with little overlap.

America!

[Js1 85,109]

Also 38% is either an outlier or start of a trend. Even Rasmussen can’t get Biden to 38%

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by Js1

[Bullneck 18,987]

You have to wonder how the questions were phrased for less than 4 of 10 people to approve of Biden.  That poll is retarded.

[Satoshi 129]

16 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Also 38% is either an outlier or start of a trend. Even Rasmussen can’t get Biden to 38%

 

The trend remains to be seen, but I would say most important is the independent breakdown. 
 

Basically 75-25 against the current handling of the border situation. 2-1 against the foreign policy. 
 

We got rid of Trump for a multitude of reason but high up there were that was a racist sob and also someone that didn’t know what he was doing on global stage and an embarrassment. Oh and Covid where he’s well underwater with independents. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by Satoshi

[aggie08 21,432]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

It's almost like Joe Biden was always going to revert to the centrist, lifelong, run-of-the-mill politician that he's always been, and anyone who bought into the "radical left agenda" propaganda is a fucking moron.

Won't stop them from crying socialism anytime anyone says the word "taxes."

But good on the Democrats for catering to the votes that they're never going to get while bleeding votes from people who support wildly popular progressive policy changes.* Smart.

*It's not like they're going to vote for Trumpers instead, but it may keep them at home.

Edited October 7, 2021 by aggie08

[DonkeyCigars 144]

I’m not the biggest Biden fan in the world but don’t see how this is entirely his fault. He can only work with what he’s got:

Biden slashes his social spending bill by more than $1 trillion. The White House and Democratic leaders said that they would propose spending $2.3 trillion on social programs over a decade. That’s substantially less than their original $3.5 trillion plan, which could mean jettisoning some initiatives entirely.

[Trey3216 15,325]

33 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

 

I guess they just got more stupid people in the middle to dislike his incredible offerings since he’s taken office.   

[DigglerontheHoof 21,061]

Cool, can't wait for President dotard v 2.0  

Will be a gas. 

[Biff Tannen 45,494]

This country is just full of broken people. Across the board. My god. I, for one, am going to try and enjoy our last couple of decades (fingers crossed) before we follow Rome into the abyss. 

[Js1 85,109]

Decades 😂