Global Warming News

[Pilot]

The Reagan / Bush tax cuts didn't double the national debt--as was mentioned previously, when the tax rates went down, revenue went up. People started putting their money into productive uses.

I remember before the Reagan tax cuts a cousin was investing in railroad cars which were sitting on sidings because the economy was in the tank. The investment tax credit was paying for the investment in this unproductive use of his money. Someone else was buying "master records"; an original hit recording from which copies were made, but the hit had come and gone. He could put it on his wall and show people that he owned the hit, "Hound Dog" or whatever. A tax credit isn't a deduction; a credit comes off the top, a dollar "invested" gives you a dollar off your declared income; so the government lets you choose how to waste taxpayer money instead of Washington deciding how to waste it. Either way, it was wasted. Reagan did away with the investment tax credit along with lowering tax rates. At that point, if you were going to invest money and get a tax benefit, the investment had to be productive, investments began to mean something and the economy recovered.

The increased spending is what doubled the debt. Reagan spent more on defense and congress spent more on social programs--you give me what I want & I'll give you what you want and they both spent us into a higher debt. Ultimately, the increased defense spending was a good investment as it put the Soviets into an arms race their economy couldn't support, the system collapsed and the cold war ended, allowing us to start paying down the national debt for a few years. I doubt that much of what congress wanted to spend was a good investment.

 

[Loren49]

Can't help myself- if economics were that simple ( i.e. less taxes equals more business and therefore more tax revenue) then why are there any economics books larger than 1 page? Why do they offer B.A./M.A./ and Phd Degrees in economics. And why did I waste the time and money on micro-economics in college.
My only point is that it's not that simple and it is certainly debatable.

Loren

 

[MikePA]

And why did I waste the time and money on micro-economics in college.

Now I understand. Economics are way too complicated for the common folks. Nope, gotta have a Harvard MBA to understand it. Maybe the Wharton School of Business. Lower tax rates and revenue goes up. No, no, no. It's not that simple. Look at my bookshelf. Please go away serf, the elites are discussing your future. Economic problems in the EU? In Spain? A country with socialized medicine and a focus on green energy? How can this be? Who will the elites point to in Europe now. Who should we emulate? Why we are told green energy will create jobs and socialized medicine will not just be revenue neutral it will result in revenue to the treasury. Just like Spain. Oh glory be, where would we be without people with MBAs and economic degrees? Where would we be? I shudder to think. I'll leave this thread now. Not enough degrees. I'll see if Thomas Sowell or Walter E. Williams are TBN members. If so, perhaps they could join the discussion.

 

[Loren49]

FYI-my one course was at a Communiy College - not much elite about it. Wanna see the calluses on my hands from working in retirement? Not much above serfdom about me but think what you'd like.
Let me try again - the whole tax - business - government revenue question is complex. I admit that there are many who have a much better grasp of it than I possess. I have debated and dissagreed with your premise. I have not attacked you as far as I know. I gave an example earlier, in the extreem case in either direction (0% tax vs 100%tax) there is a problem with government revenue. Now by logic there must be an optimum tax rate somewhere in between that maximizes government revenue. My point is lower is not always better. Hope my logic is clear. I'm confident the best rate is also a moving tarket depending on many other factors.

Not trying to be personal even when I feel attacked for my thoughts,
Loren

 

[keegs]

Now I understand. Economics are way too complicated for the common folks. Nope, gotta have a Harvard MBA to understand it. Maybe the Wharton School of Business. Lower tax rates and revenue goes up. No, no, no. It's not that simple. Look at my bookshelf. Please go away serf, the elites are discussing your future. Economic problems in the EU? In Spain? A country with socialized medicine and a focus on green energy? How can this be? Who will the elites point to in Europe now. Who should we emulate? Why we are told green energy will create jobs and socialized medicine will not just be revenue neutral it will result in revenue to the treasury. Just like Spain. Oh glory be, where would we be without people with MBAs and economic degrees? Where would we be? I shudder to think.

Mike,

You don't need a degree to use google.

On a per capita basis, Spain spends about a third of what the US spends on health care. Its national debt is about 40% of GDP ours is about 67%.

Want an example of a country that really has it's fiscal house in order, look at Canada.

 

[keegs]

The Reagan / Bush tax cuts didn't double the national debt--as was mentioned previously, when the tax rates went down, revenue went up. People started putting their money into productive uses.

I remember before the Reagan tax cuts a cousin was investing in railroad cars which were sitting on sidings because the economy was in the tank. The investment tax credit was paying for the investment in this unproductive use of his money. Someone else was buying "master records"; an original hit recording from which copies were made, but the hit had come and gone. He could put it on his wall and show people that he owned the hit, "Hound Dog" or whatever. A tax credit isn't a deduction; a credit comes off the top, a dollar "invested" gives you a dollar off your declared income; so the government lets you choose how to waste taxpayer money instead of Washington deciding how to waste it. Either way, it was wasted. Reagan did away with the investment tax credit along with lowering tax rates. At that point, if you were going to invest money and get a tax benefit, the investment had to be productive, investments began to mean something and the economy recovered.

The increased spending is what doubled the debt. Reagan spent more on defense and congress spent more on social programs--you give me what I want & I'll give you what you want and they both spent us into a higher debt. Ultimately, the increased defense spending was a good investment as it put the Soviets into an arms race their economy couldn't support, the system collapsed and the cold war ended, allowing us to start paying down the national debt for a few years. I doubt that much of what congress wanted to spend was a good investment.

Pilot,

You're right, it was a combination of tax cuts and spending increases during the Bush and Reagan administrations that doubled the national debt. GHW Bush referred to such fiscal policy as voo-doo economics.

I won't start another argument about whether Reagan brought down the Soviet Union but suffice it to say, such claims are highly speculative.

There isn't a reputable economist or economic reference that subscribes to the notion that over the mid to long term, tax cuts generate more revenue or economic growth than if they otherwise had not been made.

Again, what the cuts do is increase public debt which has to be paid back. Bond payments to foreign lenders slows economic growth in the US.

 

[MikePA]

FYI-my one course was at a Communiy College - not much elite about it. Wanna see the calluses on my hands from working in retirement? Not much above serfdom about me but think what you'd like.
Let me try again - the whole tax - business - government revenue question is complex. I admit that there are many who have a much better grasp of it than I possess. I have debated and dissagreed with your premise. I have not attacked you as far as I know. I gave an example earlier, in the extreem case in either direction (0% tax vs 100%tax) there is a problem with government revenue. Now by logic there must be an optimum tax rate somewhere in between that maximizes government revenue. My point is lower is not always better. Hope my logic is clear. I'm confident the best rate is also a moving tarket depending on many other factors.

Not trying to be personal even when I feel attacked for my thoughts,
Loren

Attacked? You brought up books, degrees and education, I didn't. Good grief.

Yes, there's an optimum rate and anyone who wanted the economy to turn around would lower rates to see what happens. Heck, if they just say no tax hikes for 3 years, things would turn around. What business in their right mind would expand not knowing if the federal or state government will reach into their pockets and take even more money to feed the bottomless pit that is government? A $5,000 tax credit for hiring someone could have only been thought of by someone who doesn't have a clue, but I bet they have a lot of degrees. Let Bush tax cuts lapse. Eliminate or severely restrict charitable contributions. Yep, that'll bring the economy around. No, all designed to grow government and get more people looking to government for sustenance.

We will never agree.

I'm going back to talk tractors.

 

[Loren49]

Mike Pa,
I agree - lets talk tractors. I'm sorry you felt I implied that anyone had to be a scholar in that area to make a statement. I was trying to emphasize that its a complex field. I'm certainly just an opinionated amateur.
Springs getting closer so time to enjoy the new Kioti and loader, what a luxury - lived with the old Farmall A for 25 years.

Loren

 

[Pilot]

Ah, now to get back to the thread topic, here are 2 items:

From the Times Online (Times of London, I believe):

"A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility."

"Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCCç—´ 2007 benchmark report on global warming."

"The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general."

"This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCCç—´ climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC's´ retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035."

So it's taken this long for pseudoscience in the 2007 IPCC report to come out. Just as I said in a much earlier post, no one reads the 2558 page IPCC report, just the executive summary and another 83 page summary, the name of which I have forgotten. And they all said, "Gee, we'd better do something about this" and talked about cap and trade and other drastic measures, which even if all were adopted wouldn't reduce global warming by more than 1/2 deg. C by 2100. I don't know if we have human caused global warming or not, and no one else does either, because the science isn't there yet. It's time to throw out the IPCC and everyone involved with writing their report and appoint new people with a reputation for integrity, with skeptics and advocates together to evaluate the science, identify the shortcomings where more research is needed and award research grants impartially, regardless of where the results might lead.

And we also need to admit that there are aspects of global warming that can help the planet so mankind can make a balanced judgment of what to do about it. Of course that won't happen because there will be politicians and advocacy groups involved, but at least by starting over we might get a better knowledge base.

 

[dcyrilc]

It would be nice if Eddie could acknowledge that windpower has a real, working place in the energy arena, I gave a good reference to check out. Nothing hypothetical about it. You can see 'em and touch 'em. But, if he wishes to believe that windpower is only just another taxpayer robbing scam that doesn't work, it's a free country. Those turbines will be producing megawatts of power whether Eddie believes in them or not. It does work, its working around the globe. Even in China they are implementing wind power as fast as possible. There are several core reasons it is an attractive energy resource.

Eddie said windmill technology is not good enough to justify having them, I would have to call that a fib. Applying Eddie's standards to himself, then I guess I can't believe anything Eddie has ever said. And now that he's lost my trust, I can't believe anything he ever will say.
Dave.

Dave,
I still have alot of reading to catch up to current posts, but I wanted to comment on this.

A couple of years back, we were invited to tour a local wind farm by the engineer who designed and oversaw the build of it for the local power company. He is a neighbor & carpool partner for our supervisor. One thing I found interesting was when he explained the the expected revenues from the wind farm would take ten years longer than the life of the equipment to pay for it. Local regulations require the use of alternative forms of energy for a percentage of their power production so they were installing several wind farms and, I belive, two solar sites even though they would loose money in doing so.

I was going to post pix, but it looks like they are all on my work computer.