Cruz: I'm a Christian first, American Second

[japantiger 4,051]

Never before have the wealthy suffered as they suffer now. Wealth creation has become impossible.

Right Blue? :-\

Perhaps some economic history would benefit you? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concepts of wealth concentration and market concentration? Are you familiar with "The Great Depression"? Perhaps unbridled capitalism is not the goal but rather, fostering competition?

If you're so well aware of "The great Depression" maybe you realize we're on the verge of another right now. Since the financial meltdown in 2008 the world has taken on an additional $58 trillion dollas in debt. Ya think that's caplitalism's fault? Im pretty familiar with what I need to know about capitalism and am confident the highest corporate tax rates in the world have cause a flight of capital like never seen before in our history. Ask Tim Cook about the money he has parked outside of America.

We're also on the cusp of negative interest rates whereby banks will charge to hold your money. Do you also think that is capitalism's fault. You really should tone down the condescension, its terribly unbecoming. The inordinate concentrations of wealth have been abetted by the Federal Reserve pumping insane amounts of liquidity into the system monetizing our debt. Carry on believing that our problems are the capitalists fault and the govt had nothing to do with it. Its very fitting for someone like you.

When are you predicting negative interest rates? Wall street investors are predicting a rate increase.

Already started...See Japan...duh.

And, assume you've also seen the Fed step back from the ridiculous notion that the economic environment was robust and they should be raising rates. Only a bureaucrat hidden in a Federal Gov't vault would think the economic environment was improving. Anyone actually dealing with the global economy knows better.

[cooltigger21 0]

Never before have the wealthy suffered as they suffer now. Wealth creation has become impossible.

Right Blue? :-\/>

Perhaps some economic history would benefit you? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concepts of wealth concentration and market concentration? Are you familiar with "The Great Depression"? Perhaps unbridled capitalism is not the goal but rather, fostering competition?

If you're so well aware of "The great Depression" maybe you realize we're on the verge of another right now. Since the financial meltdown in 2008 the world has taken on an additional $58 trillion dollas in debt. Ya think that's caplitalism's fault? Im pretty familiar with what I need to know about capitalism and am confident the highest corporate tax rates in the world have cause a flight of capital like never seen before in our history. Ask Tim Cook about the money he has parked outside of America.

We're also on the cusp of negative interest rates whereby banks will charge to hold your money. Do you also think that is capitalism's fault. You really should tone down the condescension, its terribly unbecoming. The inordinate concentrations of wealth have been abetted by the Federal Reserve pumping insane amounts of liquidity into the system monetizing our debt. Carry on believing that our problems are the capitalists fault and the govt had nothing to do with it. Its very fitting for someone like you.

When are you predicting negative interest rates? Wall street investors are predicting a rate increase.

Already started...See Japan...duh.

And, assume you've also seen the Fed step back from the ridiculous notion that the economic environment was robust and they should be raising rates. Only a bureaucrat hidden in a Federal Gov't vault would think the economic environment was improving. Anyone actually dealing with the global economy knows better.

Deflation is starting in Australia. The amount of debt racked up worldwide over the past 20 or so years is astounding. The central banks have screwed everything up royally. Commodity prices are dropping to record lows. The stock market and the bond market are both going nowhere except down.

[TexasTiger 12,953]

Never before have the wealthy suffered as they suffer now. Wealth creation has become impossible.

Right Blue? :-\/>

Perhaps some economic history would benefit you? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concepts of wealth concentration and market concentration? Are you familiar with "The Great Depression"? Perhaps unbridled capitalism is not the goal but rather, fostering competition?

If you're so well aware of "The great Depression" maybe you realize we're on the verge of another right now. Since the financial meltdown in 2008 the world has taken on an additional $58 trillion dollas in debt. Ya think that's caplitalism's fault? Im pretty familiar with what I need to know about capitalism and am confident the highest corporate tax rates in the world have cause a flight of capital like never seen before in our history. Ask Tim Cook about the money he has parked outside of America.

We're also on the cusp of negative interest rates whereby banks will charge to hold your money. Do you also think that is capitalism's fault. You really should tone down the condescension, its terribly unbecoming. The inordinate concentrations of wealth have been abetted by the Federal Reserve pumping insane amounts of liquidity into the system monetizing our debt. Carry on believing that our problems are the capitalists fault and the govt had nothing to do with it. Its very fitting for someone like you.

When are you predicting negative interest rates? Wall street investors are predicting a rate increase.

Already started...See Japan...duh.

And, assume you've also seen the Fed step back from the ridiculous notion that the economic environment was robust and they should be raising rates. Only a bureaucrat hidden in a Federal Gov't vault would think the economic environment was improving. Anyone actually dealing with the global economy knows better.

Deflation is starting in Australia. The amount of debt racked up worldwide over the past 20 or so years is astounding. The central banks have screwed everything up royally. Commodity prices are dropping to record lows. The stock market and the bond market are both going nowhere except down.

So it's a global problem? And Obama's to blame?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Never before have the wealthy suffered as they suffer now. Wealth creation has become impossible.

Right Blue? :-\

Perhaps some economic history would benefit you? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concepts of wealth concentration and market concentration? Are you familiar with "The Great Depression"? Perhaps unbridled capitalism is not the goal but rather, fostering competition?

The problem with capitalism is not too many capitalists, but not enough capitalists." - G.K. Chesterton

Exactly.

[JoeBags7277 734]

You are lost in the world of people who believe that finance is economics. Take heart though. You are hardly alone.

Also, you do not comprehend the difference between "capital flight" and tax avoidance.

And yes, when the most economically powerful are also the most politically powerful, I do tend to hold them more responsible. We must find a balance between the interests of the capitalists and society as a whole. It is not one or the other. The ability to produce is meaningless without the ability to consume.

No, I do not blame capitalism. I blame capitalists who wish to further their interests, not through honest competition but rather by using their economic power to purchase political power, in order to stifle competition.

Meaning you blame corporatists, as you rightly should. Any criticism of capitalism based on late 20th Century US economic policy and certainly on 21st Century policy is simply not grounded in logic. The titans use tools such as heavy taxation and the regulatory state to stifle competition. If there are no political favors to be bought, all the economic power in the world won't matter. The more the state legislates, the more corrupt it becomes.

[quietfan 233]

Anybody who envisions a 90% tax rate on the wealthiest individuals in America will never be taken seriously and is a clown, like it or not.

Eisenhower was a clown not to be taken seriously?

http://i158.photobuc...sIncome_600.jpg

For that matter, Nixon, Ford, and Carter were apparently okay with twice the current rate after LBJ dropped it from 91%. (It actually went up slightly when Nixon first took office.) Other than GHW Bush's one term, today's 35% is the lowest it's been since WWII. And while GHW Bush should have been a shoo-in for a second term after Desert Storm, the economy during his 'lowest max rate since before the Great Depression' cost him the '92 election.

It's also worth noting that while Eisenhower's 91% and Clinton's increase to 40% held sway during two of the most prosperous periods of the last century, two periods with some of the lowest maximum rates--1925-1931 and 2003-2008--ushered in two of the biggest economic collapses of the century. Based on history, it's hard to defend the idea that lower taxes on the rich stimulate the economy or that higher maximum rates suppress the economy.

If it were up to me, I'd shoot for a rate in the 50%-60% range (still lower than most of the century) on taxable income over $300K, bump it up to 70%-75% after the first $million, and try to lower spending to balance the budget. But that's just a gut feeling. I don't pretend to have the economic expertise to know if that's actually feasible, i.e., if that's sufficient increased revenue and/or if deep enough cuts can be found to balance the budget under those conditions.

(Obviously Presidents alone do not set tax rates, of course. I'm not really sure that Presidents and Congress combined have as much influence on the economy as we sometimes ascribe to the federal government.)

http://www.businessi...ry-of-tax-rates

As the US struggles with a massive budget deficit, the conversation has obviously turned to taxes.

Specifically, what should be done with them.

Obviously, no one likes paying higher taxes, and everyone likes paying lower taxes. But we live in the real world, not fantasy-land. And in the real world, sometimes people have to do things they would prefer not to do--like pay taxes.

But the disagreement on this issue, as well as the facts surrounding it, is intense.

Democrats, to the extent they care about the budget deficit, want to raise taxes, which they say are too low--especially on rich people.

Republicans, meanwhile, generally say that taxes are far too high and that the budget deficit should be addressed with spending cuts. To get the economy back on track, Republicans argue, you need to give Americans an incentive to work hard--by letting them keep more of what they earn. Republicans also argue that raising taxes would clobber an already fragile economy.

So who's right?

Are taxes too high? Or are they too low?

Do high tax rates on "rich people" create a lazy population in which no one has an incentive to work hard?

And what about the Republican mantra that cutting taxes is always good for the economy, while raising taxes is always bad?

Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period.

This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.

Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.

[TexasTiger 12,953]

Anybody who envisions a 90% tax rate on the wealthiest individuals in America will never be taken seriously and is a clown, like it or not.

Eisenhower was a clown not to be taken seriously?

http://i158.photobuc...sIncome_600.jpg

For that matter, Nixon, Ford, and Carter were apparently okay with twice the current rate after LBJ dropped it from 91%. (It actually went up slightly when Nixon first took office.) Other than GHW Bush's one term, today's 35% is the lowest it's been since WWII. And while GHW Bush should have been a shoo-in for a second term after Desert Storm, the economy during his 'lowest max rate since before the Great Depression' cost him the '92 election.

It's also worth noting that while Eisenhower's 91% and Clinton's increase to 40% held sway during two of the most prosperous periods of the last century, two periods with some of the lowest maximum rates--1925-1931 and 2003-2008--ushered in two of the biggest economic collapses of the century. Based on history, it's hard to defend the idea that lower taxes on the rich stimulate the economy or that higher maximum rates suppress the economy.

If it were up to me, I'd shoot for a rate in the 50%-60% range (still lower than most of the century) on taxable income over $300K, bump it up to 70%-75% after the first $million, and try to lower spending to balance the budget. But that's just a gut feeling. I don't pretend to have the economic expertise to know if that's actually feasible, i.e., if that's sufficient increased revenue and/or if deep enough cuts can be found to balance the budget under those conditions.

(Obviously Presidents alone do not set tax rates, of course. I'm not really sure that Presidents and Congress combined have as much influence on the economy as we sometimes ascribe to the federal government.)

http://www.businessi...ry-of-tax-rates

As the US struggles with a massive budget deficit, the conversation has obviously turned to taxes.

Specifically, what should be done with them.

Obviously, no one likes paying higher taxes, and everyone likes paying lower taxes. But we live in the real world, not fantasy-land. And in the real world, sometimes people have to do things they would prefer not to do--like pay taxes.

But the disagreement on this issue, as well as the facts surrounding it, is intense.

Democrats, to the extent they care about the budget deficit, want to raise taxes, which they say are too low--especially on rich people.

Republicans, meanwhile, generally say that taxes are far too high and that the budget deficit should be addressed with spending cuts. To get the economy back on track, Republicans argue, you need to give Americans an incentive to work hard--by letting them keep more of what they earn. Republicans also argue that raising taxes would clobber an already fragile economy.

So who's right?

Are taxes too high? Or are they too low?

Do high tax rates on "rich people" create a lazy population in which no one has an incentive to work hard?

And what about the Republican mantra that cutting taxes is always good for the economy, while raising taxes is always bad?

Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period.

This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.

Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.

There is currently zero political courage to take the steps necessary to fix our finances and that includes raising taxes. We are living in LaLa land where folks can say, "wage war and slash taxes!" and get elected because the conservative noise machine has obliterated reality for too many voters.

The folks who watch the most "news" are the most misinformed.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

"The folks who watch the most "news" are the most misinformed."

But, but,,,,,,,,,,,,,I am so happy and so entertained here in the echo chamber. I no longer have to think. I KNOW.

[japantiger 4,051]

Never before have the wealthy suffered as they suffer now. Wealth creation has become impossible.

Right Blue? :-\/>

Perhaps some economic history would benefit you? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concepts of wealth concentration and market concentration? Are you familiar with "The Great Depression"? Perhaps unbridled capitalism is not the goal but rather, fostering competition?

If you're so well aware of "The great Depression" maybe you realize we're on the verge of another right now. Since the financial meltdown in 2008 the world has taken on an additional $58 trillion dollas in debt. Ya think that's caplitalism's fault? Im pretty familiar with what I need to know about capitalism and am confident the highest corporate tax rates in the world have cause a flight of capital like never seen before in our history. Ask Tim Cook about the money he has parked outside of America.

We're also on the cusp of negative interest rates whereby banks will charge to hold your money. Do you also think that is capitalism's fault. You really should tone down the condescension, its terribly unbecoming. The inordinate concentrations of wealth have been abetted by the Federal Reserve pumping insane amounts of liquidity into the system monetizing our debt. Carry on believing that our problems are the capitalists fault and the govt had nothing to do with it. Its very fitting for someone like you.

When are you predicting negative interest rates? Wall street investors are predicting a rate increase.

Already started...See Japan...duh.

And, assume you've also seen the Fed step back from the ridiculous notion that the economic environment was robust and they should be raising rates. Only a bureaucrat hidden in a Federal Gov't vault would think the economic environment was improving. Anyone actually dealing with the global economy knows better.

Deflation is starting in Australia. The amount of debt racked up worldwide over the past 20 or so years is astounding. The central banks have screwed everything up royally. Commodity prices are dropping to record lows. The stock market and the bond market are both going nowhere except down.

So it's a global problem? And Obama's to blame?

Well, let me see....we are the largest economy on the plant by a wide margin...so, when we catch a cold, the rest of the world gets cancer...so yeah, kind of is his fault. He has not put a single program forward that actually increases economic activity. However, the transfer payment portion of the economy is booming...so much in fact, that it represented the single largest component of increase in economic activity in the last GDP report (ie., the Obama-care mandate was the single largest contributor to GDP growth this last report; if you can call 0.7% growth). So our GDP growth really isn't, well, growth. the current policies have resulted in fewer people working than at anytime in the last 50 years...so, the whole unemployment rate statistic is now meaningless as an indicator of economic health.

And his legislation by regulation or administrative fiat is sucking the life out of business. We are forming fewer small businesses than at any time since I have been in the business world...and businesses are folding faster than startups. This alone should scare the hell out of all of you since SB's account for 2/3 of all domestic job growth. SB's are the leading indicator of both going into recession and coming out of recession....And the EPA wants to regulate ditches and cattle ponds...they can't deliver the mail without pissing away money...but he thinks they can regulate ditches...and the current admin is being sued by more than half the states on 20 different counts of executive overreach. Not a single proposal on the table to bring manufacturing back to the US; in fact, TPP will do the opposite.

All this instead of creating policies that create jobs...so yeah, he's pretty much a disaster for us domestically and the economy globally...by the way, we are the #2 economies largest trading partner...so when our economy stinks, theirs does too.....

[TexasTiger 12,953]

Never before have the wealthy suffered as they suffer now. Wealth creation has become impossible.

Right Blue? :-\/>

Perhaps some economic history would benefit you? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concepts of wealth concentration and market concentration? Are you familiar with "The Great Depression"? Perhaps unbridled capitalism is not the goal but rather, fostering competition?

If you're so well aware of "The great Depression" maybe you realize we're on the verge of another right now. Since the financial meltdown in 2008 the world has taken on an additional $58 trillion dollas in debt. Ya think that's caplitalism's fault? Im pretty familiar with what I need to know about capitalism and am confident the highest corporate tax rates in the world have cause a flight of capital like never seen before in our history. Ask Tim Cook about the money he has parked outside of America.

We're also on the cusp of negative interest rates whereby banks will charge to hold your money. Do you also think that is capitalism's fault. You really should tone down the condescension, its terribly unbecoming. The inordinate concentrations of wealth have been abetted by the Federal Reserve pumping insane amounts of liquidity into the system monetizing our debt. Carry on believing that our problems are the capitalists fault and the govt had nothing to do with it. Its very fitting for someone like you.

When are you predicting negative interest rates? Wall street investors are predicting a rate increase.

Already started...See Japan...duh.

And, assume you've also seen the Fed step back from the ridiculous notion that the economic environment was robust and they should be raising rates. Only a bureaucrat hidden in a Federal Gov't vault would think the economic environment was improving. Anyone actually dealing with the global economy knows better.

Deflation is starting in Australia. The amount of debt racked up worldwide over the past 20 or so years is astounding. The central banks have screwed everything up royally. Commodity prices are dropping to record lows. The stock market and the bond market are both going nowhere except down.

So it's a global problem? And Obama's to blame?

Well, let me see....we are the largest economy on the plant by a wide margin...so, when we catch a cold, the rest of the world gets cancer...so yeah, kind of is his fault. He has not put a single program forward that actually increases economic activity. However, the transfer payment portion of the economy is booming...so much in fact, that it represented the single largest component of increase in economic activity in the last GDP report (ie., the Obama-care mandate was the single largest contributor to GDP growth this last report; if you can call 0.7% growth). So our GDP growth really isn't, well, growth. the current policies have resulted in fewer people working than at anytime in the last 50 years...so, the whole unemployment rate statistic is now meaningless as an indicator of economic health.

And his legislation by regulation or administrative fiat is sucking the life out of business. We are forming fewer small businesses than at any time since I have been in the business world...and businesses are folding faster than startups. This alone should scare the hell out of all of you since SB's account for 2/3 of all domestic job growth. SB's are the leading indicator of both going into recession and coming out of recession....And the EPA wants to regulate ditches and cattle ponds...they can't deliver the mail without pissing away money...but he thinks they can regulate ditches...and the current admin is being sued by more than half the states on 20 different counts of executive overreach. Not a single proposal on the table to bring manufacturing back to the US; in fact, TPP will do the opposite.

All this instead of creating policies that create jobs...so yeah, he's pretty much a disaster for us domestically and the economy globally...by the way, we are the #2 economies largest trading partner...so when our economy stinks, theirs does too.....

That makes some sense when our economy tanks-- but relative to most of the world, we're doing better. Sounds like you're trying to make facts fit your theory.

Do you support single payer health care, largely removing that burden from business and giving US business a more level playing field with the rest of the world?

[japantiger 4,051]

Never before have the wealthy suffered as they suffer now. Wealth creation has become impossible.

Right Blue? :-\/>

Perhaps some economic history would benefit you? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concepts of wealth concentration and market concentration? Are you familiar with "The Great Depression"? Perhaps unbridled capitalism is not the goal but rather, fostering competition?

If you're so well aware of "The great Depression" maybe you realize we're on the verge of another right now. Since the financial meltdown in 2008 the world has taken on an additional $58 trillion dollas in debt. Ya think that's caplitalism's fault? Im pretty familiar with what I need to know about capitalism and am confident the highest corporate tax rates in the world have cause a flight of capital like never seen before in our history. Ask Tim Cook about the money he has parked outside of America.

We're also on the cusp of negative interest rates whereby banks will charge to hold your money. Do you also think that is capitalism's fault. You really should tone down the condescension, its terribly unbecoming. The inordinate concentrations of wealth have been abetted by the Federal Reserve pumping insane amounts of liquidity into the system monetizing our debt. Carry on believing that our problems are the capitalists fault and the govt had nothing to do with it. Its very fitting for someone like you.

When are you predicting negative interest rates? Wall street investors are predicting a rate increase.

Already started...See Japan...duh.

And, assume you've also seen the Fed step back from the ridiculous notion that the economic environment was robust and they should be raising rates. Only a bureaucrat hidden in a Federal Gov't vault would think the economic environment was improving. Anyone actually dealing with the global economy knows better.

Deflation is starting in Australia. The amount of debt racked up worldwide over the past 20 or so years is astounding. The central banks have screwed everything up royally. Commodity prices are dropping to record lows. The stock market and the bond market are both going nowhere except down.

So it's a global problem? And Obama's to blame?

Well, let me see....we are the largest economy on the plant by a wide margin...so, when we catch a cold, the rest of the world gets cancer...so yeah, kind of is his fault. He has not put a single program forward that actually increases economic activity. However, the transfer payment portion of the economy is booming...so much in fact, that it represented the single largest component of increase in economic activity in the last GDP report (ie., the Obama-care mandate was the single largest contributor to GDP growth this last report; if you can call 0.7% growth). So our GDP growth really isn't, well, growth. the current policies have resulted in fewer people working than at anytime in the last 50 years...so, the whole unemployment rate statistic is now meaningless as an indicator of economic health.

And his legislation by regulation or administrative fiat is sucking the life out of business. We are forming fewer small businesses than at any time since I have been in the business world...and businesses are folding faster than startups. This alone should scare the hell out of all of you since SB's account for 2/3 of all domestic job growth. SB's are the leading indicator of both going into recession and coming out of recession....And the EPA wants to regulate ditches and cattle ponds...they can't deliver the mail without pissing away money...but he thinks they can regulate ditches...and the current admin is being sued by more than half the states on 20 different counts of executive overreach. Not a single proposal on the table to bring manufacturing back to the US; in fact, TPP will do the opposite.

All this instead of creating policies that create jobs...so yeah, he's pretty much a disaster for us domestically and the economy globally...by the way, we are the #2 economies largest trading partner...so when our economy stinks, theirs does too.....

That makes some sense when our economy tanks-- but relative to most of the world, we're doing better. Sounds like you're trying to make facts fit your theory.

Do you support single payer health care, largely removing that burden from business and giving US business a more level playing field with the rest of the world?

Well, let's see, China GDP grew 7%....we grew 1/10th of that. By historical standards, China is a disaster....so what does that make us...yes, a disaster. I don't care what you want to do; when you have fewer people paying taxes (fewer actual workers), who make less than they used to (AGI down for 7 years running) supporting more unemployed (yes, that largest number in 50 years); it doesn't matter what you do...you can't tax your way out of it. The fastest growing economic statistic of the last 7 years is foodstamp recipients. You have to grow the economy, grow employment and grow income. Doing any one of the three just means you will code out slower...either way, you're bleeding out...funny, I just expect more from the people we entrust to run the country.

Look at Japan...that is where we are headed...charging people to hold their savings...how screwed up is that?

Of course I don't support single payer healthcare...I support competition in the market. Had we been able to do that all along (simple things such as competition for insurance across state lines) you wouldn't have had the issues we had prior to O'care. Single payer anything is a disaster. Look at what has happened to our education system since the Fed got involved. You now have a single payer education system and we are raising a generation too damn stupid to vote. The single payer mail system is a disaster....no need to go on.

If you want to put US business on the same footing with the rest of the world, reduce corporate income taxes...that is the single largest reason businesses relocate overseas and that their is a mountain of profits that can;t be brought back into the US to drive US production. We've had this discussion on here before. Actual productivity in the US vs overseas usually normalizes pretty quickly; the rational for relocating all but the absolutely lowest skilled roles overseas is the tax rate differential (I am forced to make these decisions way to often...).

[icanthearyou 4,463]

So, if we had a zero corporate tax rate, we would have all the jobs? How about more corporate subsidies?

Wages and environmental protections have no bearing on outsourcing?

Perhaps the problem is more global than JT is letting on? Perhaps his political agenda defies real economic and financial principles? Perhaps he would be more credible if his post did not begin with an outright lie?

[TexasTiger 12,953]

Never before have the wealthy suffered as they suffer now. Wealth creation has become impossible.

Right Blue? :-\/>

Perhaps some economic history would benefit you? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concepts of wealth concentration and market concentration? Are you familiar with "The Great Depression"? Perhaps unbridled capitalism is not the goal but rather, fostering competition?

If you're so well aware of "The great Depression" maybe you realize we're on the verge of another right now. Since the financial meltdown in 2008 the world has taken on an additional $58 trillion dollas in debt. Ya think that's caplitalism's fault? Im pretty familiar with what I need to know about capitalism and am confident the highest corporate tax rates in the world have cause a flight of capital like never seen before in our history. Ask Tim Cook about the money he has parked outside of America.

We're also on the cusp of negative interest rates whereby banks will charge to hold your money. Do you also think that is capitalism's fault. You really should tone down the condescension, its terribly unbecoming. The inordinate concentrations of wealth have been abetted by the Federal Reserve pumping insane amounts of liquidity into the system monetizing our debt. Carry on believing that our problems are the capitalists fault and the govt had nothing to do with it. Its very fitting for someone like you.

When are you predicting negative interest rates? Wall street investors are predicting a rate increase.

Already started...See Japan...duh.

And, assume you've also seen the Fed step back from the ridiculous notion that the economic environment was robust and they should be raising rates. Only a bureaucrat hidden in a Federal Gov't vault would think the economic environment was improving. Anyone actually dealing with the global economy knows better.

Deflation is starting in Australia. The amount of debt racked up worldwide over the past 20 or so years is astounding. The central banks have screwed everything up royally. Commodity prices are dropping to record lows. The stock market and the bond market are both going nowhere except down.

So it's a global problem? And Obama's to blame?

Well, let me see....we are the largest economy on the plant by a wide margin...so, when we catch a cold, the rest of the world gets cancer...so yeah, kind of is his fault. He has not put a single program forward that actually increases economic activity. However, the transfer payment portion of the economy is booming...so much in fact, that it represented the single largest component of increase in economic activity in the last GDP report (ie., the Obama-care mandate was the single largest contributor to GDP growth this last report; if you can call 0.7% growth). So our GDP growth really isn't, well, growth. the current policies have resulted in fewer people working than at anytime in the last 50 years...so, the whole unemployment rate statistic is now meaningless as an indicator of economic health.

And his legislation by regulation or administrative fiat is sucking the life out of business. We are forming fewer small businesses than at any time since I have been in the business world...and businesses are folding faster than startups. This alone should scare the hell out of all of you since SB's account for 2/3 of all domestic job growth. SB's are the leading indicator of both going into recession and coming out of recession....And the EPA wants to regulate ditches and cattle ponds...they can't deliver the mail without pissing away money...but he thinks they can regulate ditches...and the current admin is being sued by more than half the states on 20 different counts of executive overreach. Not a single proposal on the table to bring manufacturing back to the US; in fact, TPP will do the opposite.

All this instead of creating policies that create jobs...so yeah, he's pretty much a disaster for us domestically and the economy globally...by the way, we are the #2 economies largest trading partner...so when our economy stinks, theirs does too.....

That makes some sense when our economy tanks-- but relative to most of the world, we're doing better. Sounds like you're trying to make facts fit your theory.

Do you support single payer health care, largely removing that burden from business and giving US business a more level playing field with the rest of the world?

Well, let's see, China GDP grew 7%....we grew 1/10th of that. By historical standards, China is a disaster....so what does that make us...yes, a disaster. I don't care what you want to do; when you have fewer people paying taxes (fewer actual workers), who make less than they used to (AGI down for 7 years running) supporting more unemployed (yes, that largest number in 50 years); it doesn't matter what you do...you can't tax your way out of it. The fastest growing economic statistic of the last 7 years is foodstamp recipients. You have to grow the economy, grow employment and grow income. Doing any one of the three just means you will code out slower...either way, you're bleeding out...funny, I just expect more from the people we entrust to run the country.

Look at Japan...that is where we are headed...charging people to hold their savings...how screwed up is that?

Of course I don't support single payer healthcare...I support competition in the market. Had we been able to do that all along (simple things such as competition for insurance across state lines) you wouldn't have had the issues we had prior to O'care. Single payer anything is a disaster. Look at what has happened to our education system since the Fed got involved. You now have a single payer education system and we are raising a generation too damn stupid to vote. The single payer mail system is a disaster....no need to go on.

If you want to put US business on the same footing with the rest of the world, reduce corporate income taxes...that is the single largest reason businesses relocate overseas and that their is a mountain of profits that can;t be brought back into the US to drive US production. We've had this discussion on here before. Actual productivity in the US vs overseas usually normalizes pretty quickly; the rational for relocating all but the absolutely lowest skilled roles overseas is the tax rate differential (I am forced to make these decisions way to often...).

You're comparing China's year with the USA's 4th quarter (and still rounding China up.) USA was 2.4 for the year.

[PUB78 1,358]

I like Cruz and will vote for him. He is a man of faith and principles. He stood up to the greedy and corrupt Senate leadership of the Republicans.

Have no idea who this group is that claims to be the largest online Christian organization, but they must be a left-wing group.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I like Cruz and will vote for him. He is a man of faith and principles. He stood up to the greedy and corrupt Senate leadership of the Republicans.

Have no idea who this group is that claims to be the largest online Christian organization, but they must be a left-wing group.

Good to see you in this forum. I like the way you think. Post more often

[channonc 466]

After Cruz declared on the campaign trail that he is a "Christian first, and an American second," a writer from Patheos gave a couple good points on his rather disturbing declaration.

First, the article asks what would the response be if a Muslim made this declaration about his religion? Christian Privilege?

And then to finish off the article, he concludes that Cruz is more fit to lead a Christian church than to lead a nation if the former holds his loyalty. What say you?

And Raptor, please read the article for once. Even if it requires clicking a link.

http://www.patheos.c...merican-second/

I'm late to this game, but to answer the "What say you?" question: If he's a Christian first and an American second, he should go run for a deacon position in some church. We are currently experiencing someone in the whitehouse that's something other than an American first, though his particular concern is probably not religious. Once is enough. Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, whatever. If your religious sect is more important to you than this country, go home and be religious.

Other than the fact that I disagree about our current President, I agree with the rest of what you said. I think too many place too much emphasis on the religion of our President (or Presidential candidates for that matter).

[TitanTiger 20,499]

You act as if the concept of dominionism doesn't exist. Simply because no one has successfully instituted a dominionist government doesn't mean we shouldn't be wary of it. And there's plenty of reason to be wary of Cruz considering his background. There are plenty of people who insist we live in a "Christian Nation" and I suspect he is one of them.

Well the argument hasn't been framed in such a way as to limit it to just Christians with dominionist views. I have been arguing that the principle of a Christian's first allegiance being to God over all else, even as President, is hardly new or novel. Abraham Lincoln even made the statement during the Civil War that it wasn't important to know whether or not God was on the Union's side - what was important was whether or not the Union was on God's side. So this understanding has been in place for a long, long time and has extended even in to modern times.

I get why Cruz specifically might cause one's antennae to go up because of the dominionism issue, but that's a different problem than just the principle of "God first." Dominion theology is an extremely small and narrow band of Protestant Christianity in this country and the world. It just doesn't represent the views of the vast majority of Protestants, to say nothing of its non-existence among Catholics and the Orthodox.

And the first amendment doesn't mention a state religion. It refers to legislation respecting the establishment of religion. Formulating law directly on the basis of a religious belief does exactly that, as does incorporating religious expression as part of civic (government) activities.

It's not even that straightforward. One can hold policy positions that for them are rooted in religious faith, yet still be able to show how such policies are reasonable, practical and justifiable on a basis that is non-religious in nature.

The main concern of the Second Amendment was to avoid the religious wars and persecutions that England experienced by having an official state religion. To try and say otherwise is to ignore the history and context the Constitution was written in light of.

[Grumps 3,704]

It seems like many of you are saying that if a president says:

"I am a Christian and I am not in favor of the death penalty." It is wrong.

But if a president says:

"I think that the death penalty is wrong and I am not in favor of it." It is okay.

IT IS THE SAME THING. Just because a position lines up with Christian beliefs does not mean that religion is controlling the government. For the VAST majority of people on this board, our moral values are in line with Christian values 95+% of the time, whether or not you are a Christian. It is odd to me that people are so afraid of Christian values.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Sorry but Cruz is scary.

And Hillary and Bernie aren't? Who do you like?

Sorry, there's no way either Dem candidate can compare on the scary scale with Cruz. Quite honestly, I'm undecided, but I can tell you that I won't be voting for the Republican nominee.

I understand because I know you are a strong Dem. But are you serious you would vote for a socialist or lying lawbreaker over someone because they are Republican?

[channonc 466]

Sorry but Cruz is scary.

And Hillary and Bernie aren't? Who do you like?

Sorry, there's no way either Dem candidate can compare on the scary scale with Cruz. Quite honestly, I'm undecided, but I can tell you that I won't be voting for the Republican nominee.

I understand because I know you are a strong Dem. But are you serious you would vote for a socialist or lying lawbreaker over someone because they are Republican?

It's more that none of the Republicans seem to line up with me on any of the issues, I would consider looking harder at Kasich, but I doubt he makes much traction beyond NH (unfortunately). I also agree with a lot of what Rand says on foreign policy matters, and would have also considered taking a harder look at him before he dropped out. The rest of the field however is way too hawkish for me, and far to conservative on fiscal issues for me. Immigration, foreign policy, healthcare, taxes... these are all issues that I don't agree with anyone else in the Republican field. Trump and Cruz terrify me with their xenophobic rhetoric. I just don't think that is good for the country, and only further divides us.

Hillary is a favorite target of Republicans, some of that blame is squarely on her shoulders and others is not so much. Morally and ethically, I can understand why some don't trust her and frankly, I'm not sure where I fall on the trust gauge with her either, but one thing is for sure, I know what I am getting when I elect a Clinton (the good and the bad). On Bernie, I think he changes the national conversation. Many things I find myself agreeing with him on, and a few things I don't (free college education for example and as I've discussed before I'm not sure I support single payer). But either of these candidates on the issues align much more closely with my views and that's what I try to vote on-- the issues.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Sorry but Cruz is scary.

And Hillary and Bernie aren't? Who do you like?

Sorry, there's no way either Dem candidate can compare on the scary scale with Cruz. Quite honestly, I'm undecided, but I can tell you that I won't be voting for the Republican nominee.

I understand because I know you are a strong Dem. But are you serious you would vote for a socialist or lying lawbreaker over someone because they are Republican?

It's more that none of the Republicans seem to line up with me on any of the issues, I would consider looking harder at Kasich, but I doubt he makes much traction beyond NH (unfortunately). I also agree with a lot of what Rand says on foreign policy matters, and would have also considered taking a harder look at him before he dropped out. The rest of the field however is way too hawkish for me, and far to conservative on fiscal issues for me. Immigration, foreign policy, healthcare, taxes... these are all issues that I don't agree with anyone else in the Republican field. Trump and Cruz terrify me with their xenophobic rhetoric. I just don't think that is good for the country, and only further divides us.

Hillary is a favorite target of Republicans, some of that blame is squarely on her shoulders and others is not so much. Morally and ethically, I can understand why some don't trust her and frankly, I'm not sure where I fall on the trust gauge with her either, but one thing is for sure, I know what I am getting when I elect a Clinton (the good and the bad). On Bernie, I think he changes the national conversation. Many things I find myself agreeing with him on, and a few things I don't (free college education for example and as I've discussed before I'm not sure I support single payer). But either of these candidates on the issues align much more closely with my views and that's what I try to vote on-- the issues.

I respect your view. I don't have a dog in the fight that I'm wild about either. Issues are important to me too but character is also. IMHO Hillary has none. But then again character doesn't always translate into being a good POTUS. After all, I voted for Jimmy Carter. And I would note, Carter always said he but his Christian faith first.

[homersapien 11,390]

You act as if the concept of dominionism doesn't exist. Simply because no one has successfully instituted a dominionist government doesn't mean we shouldn't be wary of it. And there's plenty of reason to be wary of Cruz considering his background. There are plenty of people who insist we live in a "Christian Nation" and I suspect he is one of them.

Well the argument hasn't been framed in such a way as to limit it to just Christians with dominionist views. I have been arguing that the principle of a Christian's first allegiance being to God over all else, even as President, is hardly new or novel. Abraham Lincoln even made the statement during the Civil War that it wasn't important to know whether or not God was on the Union's side - what was important was whether or not the Union was on God's side. So this understanding has been in place for a long, long time and has extended even in to modern times.

I get why Cruz specifically might cause one's antennae to go up because of the dominionism issue, but that's a different problem than just the principle of "God first." Dominion theology is an extremely small and narrow band of Protestant Christianity in this country and the world. It just doesn't represent the views of the vast majority of Protestants, to say nothing of its non-existence among Catholics and the Orthodox.

And the first amendment doesn't mention a state religion. It refers to legislation respecting the establishment of religion. Formulating law directly on the basis of a religious belief does exactly that, as does incorporating religious expression as part of civic (government) activities.

It's not even that straightforward. One can hold policy positions that for them are rooted in religious faith, yet still be able to show how such policies are reasonable, practical and justifiable on a basis that is non-religious in nature.

The main concern of the Second Amendment was to avoid the religious wars and persecutions that England experienced by having an official state religion. To try and say otherwise is to ignore the history and context the Constitution was written in light of.

I think I understand your position and I don't really disagree. The discussion drifted from the given context which is largely my fault.

I think there are plenty of Christians who "put God first" but who are capable of acting in the countries interest, even when there's a conflict, which is often. I don't know if that says more about their professed beliefs or their patriotic pragmatism, but to your point, it has often been the case, for better or worse.

But Cruz has dominionist roots and he was speaking to an evangelical crowd who are at least empathetic toward if not totally supportive of dominionism. That's why I described his statement as a "dog whistle", which it was (even though it really wasn't that all that silent).

Now it may be that Cruz is a psychopath and could care less about God, but he is nevertheless pandering to those who are certainly open to a theocratic influence.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I think I understand your position and I don't really disagree. The discussion drifted from the given context which is largely my fault.

I think there are plenty of Christians who "put God first" but who are capable of acting in the countries interest, even when there's a conflict, which is often. I don't know if that says more about their professed beliefs or their patriotic pragmatism, but to your point, it has often been the case, for better or worse.

I think it's probably because most of the time, the two aren't really in conflict. And the times that they would be (condoning torture for instance), there are plenty of people who argue against torture for reasons having nothing to do with religiously based morality, so it opposition to torture may come from one's faith, but it doesn't necessarily mean that that's the ONLY reason for opposing it.

[japantiger 4,051]

So, if we had a zero corporate tax rate, we would have all the jobs? How about more corporate subsidies?

Wages and environmental protections have no bearing on outsourcing?

Perhaps the problem is more global than JT is letting on? Perhaps his political agenda defies real economic and financial principles? Perhaps he would be more credible if his post did not begin with an outright lie?

Ask a serious question and I'll discuss the topic. Throwing out facetious bull**** indicates you have no interest in discussing a mature or rational economic policy. No rational individual would propose 0 tax rates...and no one interested in having a serious discussion would start with a strawman to that effect.

And, please be specific, where is the lie at the beginning of my post? My economic statistics can be pulled from the front page or markets section of the WSJ on any day. Corporate tax arbitrage is also a matter of fact and record...and is why there are Trillions$$ parked overseas that can't/won't be repatriated (foreign based income has increased to over 50% of US multinational income in the last 17 years...that is a 17% increase)....this fact does nothing for the competitiveness of the companies...it just an easy means to boost profits by going where companies are incented to go.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

It has been my experience that you are neither capable of intelligent nor honest discussion. You have wasted my time, too many times.

"we are the largest economy on the plant by a wide margin" Really? Wide margin? I suppose the IMF uses the wrong metric. Perhaps you do not understand our role as the largest consumer market? Perhaps when our middle class no longer exists, you will understand the futility of exploiting labor and believing in trickle down economics.

Zero corporate tax rate has been proposed and discussed in this forum. Guess who proposed it? No, not me. Furthermore, when profits are diverted to zero tax havens such as Bermuda, what else Is left. When such options are available and, tax avoidance is a normal business practice, what else is there? There is nothing facetious about it.

I do not totally discount the fact that companies move operations in the legitimate effort to maximize profits. However, I vehemently disagree that their motives incorporate the interests of the country, society, or even their own best long-term interests. I will not pretend that exploited labor, lax regulations, and no environmental protections are not primary incentives. Hope you enjoy living in a house with cheap Chinese drywall covered in lead paint.

Finally, you demonstrate no understanding of what a negative interest rate means or, the motivation behind it.

As usual, you want to make a political statement with phony, distorted, and/or absurd economic information.