U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Spectral]

You started that off strong and then your argument completely fell off halfway through. Many countries backed the US to start this war. Now less countries back us than ever because of Obama. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.

There's nothing better than "facts" that are completely counterfactual. I'm really not convinced of this universal voting thing.

[Wells]

Remember that nonpartisan study that came out a little while ago saying there was no real evidence backing the GOP rhetoric on taxes and economic performance?

GOP bitching has gotten it removed from the Library of Congress.

[Rukentuts]

Remember that nonpartisan study that came out a little while ago saying there was no real evidence backing the GOP rhetoric on taxes and economic performance?

GOP bitching has gotten it removed from the Library of Congress.

So much for the First Amendment. That's not fascist behavior at all...

[Slammin Shaman]

So much for the First Amendment. That's not fascist behavior at all...

They used their freedom of speech to get it removed. Completely legal and in no way scary that some complaining can get factual data removed because it didn't sit well with their theories.

[Kraenen]

They used their freedom of speech to get it removed. Completely legal and in no way scary that some complaining can get factual data removed because it didn't sit well with their theories.

You know Stalin used his freedom of speech to do a lot of things....

[Spectral]

Someone needs to inform them of the Streisand Effect.

That aside, I'm not at all surprised that a party that overwhelmingly rejects various scientific consensuses would reject an economic paper.

[Wells]

Here's the funny thing. This is the GOP that in large part idolizes Atlas Shrugged. In that book liberals force economists to not release studies and data that runs counter to their rhetoric.

[Spectral]

Don't forget that this is the narrative they've made up for evolution and climate change too - that the real science shows something totally different, but that it's just suppressed by the liberals. Once you've decided that whatever you currently believe is what's true, it's pretty easy to start declaring that studies showing something else must be lies.

[starlord]

Here's the funny thing. This is the GOP that in large part idolizes Atlas Shrugged. In that book liberals force economists to not release studies and data that runs counter to their rhetoric.

hey c'mon man dont spoil it.. im reading it!

[Rukentuts]

You know Stalin used his freedom of speech to do a lot of things....

Is that why every time Romney says "Five point plan" I hear "Five year plan"?

[Felya]

With all the talks of Russia, some perspective:

Vysotsky on 60 minutes from 1978:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzm7juykO7k

[Sunseeker]

Is that why every time Romney says "Five point plan" I hear "Five year plan"?

Not that the concept of a "Five Year Plan" is wholly flawed. Planning into the next decade is useless as there are too many variables, planning for only next year is pointless because there's too little time to accomplish anything. 5 years is a good middle point to make quasi-long term plans. They are not so reliant on future events that they cannot be altered, and they are far-reaching enough to allow time for consideration and implementation.

Stalin was a horrible person, but the technological advancement in Russia from his taking power to his death is incredible. Not exactly the best set of plans, but damn if not effective.

[KingHorse]

Remember that nonpartisan study that came out a little while ago saying there was no real evidence backing the GOP rhetoric on taxes and economic performance?

GOP bitching has gotten it removed from the Library of Congress.

So much for the First Amendment. That's not fascist behavior at all...

You know Stalin used his freedom of speech to do a lot of things....

Someone needs to inform them of the Streisand Effect.

That aside, I'm not at all surprised that a party that overwhelmingly rejects various scientific consensuses would reject an economic paper.

Republicans did not say whether they had asked the research service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, to take the report out of circulation, but they were clear that they protested its tone and findings. Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Mr. McConnell and other senators “raised concerns about the methodology and other flaws.” Mr. Stewart added that people outside of Congress had also criticized the study and that officials at the research service “decided, on their own, to pull the study pending further review.”

Echo chambers are bad.

Read the article. You whine that it was "GOP bitching" that got the study voluntarily removed. Not forced. Not sued. Voluntary. If the study was flawless and unimpeachable, would it have been removed because of "bitching"? Not likely. They raised some serious questions about what they saw as a flawed study. And apparently the Congressional Research Service agreed, as they removed the study of their own accord. Damn those GOP thugs for intimidating this harmless nonpartisan organization by pointing out that their study was a pile of flaming poop!

[Deleted]

Echo chambers are bad.

Read the article. You whine that it was "GOP bitching" that got the study voluntarily removed. Not forced. Not sued. Voluntary. If the study was flawless and unimpeachable, would it have been removed because of "bitching"? Not likely. They raised some serious questions about what they saw as a flawed study. And apparently the Congressional Research Service agreed, as they removed the study of their own accord. Damn those GOP thugs for intimidating this harmless nonpartisan organization by pointing out that their study was a pile of flaming poop!

The fact that an amateur like me could point out the obvious statistical fallacies in the report (and the ridiculous conclusion) just goes to show that the "study" had no place in there.

[Spectral]

Echo chambers are bad.

Read the article. You whine that it was "GOP bitching" that got the study voluntarily removed. Not forced. Not sued. Voluntary. If the study was flawless and unimpeachable, would it have been removed because of "bitching"? Not likely. They raised some serious questions about what they saw as a flawed study. And apparently the Congressional Research Service agreed, as they removed the study of their own accord. Damn those GOP thugs for intimidating this harmless nonpartisan organization by pointing out that their study was a pile of flaming poop!

From the article above:

The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership...

Aides to Mr. McConnell presented a bill of particulars to the research service that included objections to the use of the term “Bush tax cuts” and the report’s reference to “tax cuts for the rich,” which Republicans contended was politically freighted.

This was primarily a political decision.

[Grizzly Willy]

Was the study as faulty as KingHorse is saying it was? If so, why does it matter the reason for removing it? Hell, if an inaccurate study came out making your party look bad, wouldn't you want it gone?

[Spectral]

Was the study as faulty as KingHorse is saying it was? If so, why does it matter the reason for removing it? Hell, if an inaccurate study came out making your party look bad, wouldn't you want it gone?

Yes, I would. I don't know much about the study, to be perfectly honest. I'm basing my conclusion here on the statement quoted above, that the decision was made against the advice of the agency's economic leadership team. I'm happy to defer to the economics folks from a non-partisan organization on matteres of economics. That McConnell's aides drew up a complaint that included whining about terms used (really, "tax cuts for the rich" is a problem?) furthers my opinion that this is a political decision.

My opinion on this is tentative. It is worth mentioning, however, that a study having flaws generally doesn't remove it from all consideration, it just means that those flaws get considered.

[KingHorse]

My opinion on this is tentative. It is worth mentioning, however, that a study having flaws generally doesn't remove it from all consideration, it just means that those flaws get considered.

And I'll say that terminology has little to do with the validity of a study. If the numbers support a conclusion that someone is an asshole, calling them an asshole is warranted, even if it's not politically correct. But it's the numbers that seem to be a problem here. If the numbers (that are currently under review according to the article, not permanently removed) are right, then yes, the Republicans are whining because they don't like being called rich.

[Deleted]

The biggest problem I saw from a purely statistical point of view was that the factor they compared all the other economic factors against was "Top Marginal Tax Rate". To use that as one of the factors, 70% Top marginal tax rate must be double that of 35% for example. But it isn't, because the levels at which you start paying the top marginal rate have changed "arbitrarily" between the different top marginal rates. Without taking the level at which they kick in into account, you can't even calculate the true average top marginal tax rate, or any other statistical numbers.

If they really wanted to use the top marginal tax rate, it should've been adjusted (if even possible) for the level of income at which the top marginal tax rate starts. A much simpler option would've been to use effective tax rates of X% top income earners. That way they could've made the claim that low effective tax rates correlate with slow economic growth etc.

[Daelak]

The biggest problem I saw from a purely statistical point of view was that the factor they compared all the other economic factors against was "Top Marginal Tax Rate". To use that as one of the factors, 70% Top marginal tax rate must be double that of 35% for example. But it isn't, because the levels at which you start paying the top marginal rate have changed "arbitrarily" between the different top marginal rates. Without taking the level at which they kick in into account, you can't even calculate the true average top marginal tax rate, or any other statistical numbers.

If they really wanted to use the top marginal tax rate, it should've been adjusted (if even possible) for the level of income at which the top marginal tax rate starts. A much simpler option would've been to use effective tax rates of X% top income earners. That way they could've made the claim that low effective tax rates correlate with slow economic growth etc.

"The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie."

-Thomas Hungerford, CRS researcher

"However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities."

-Thomas Hungerford

"The richest Americans are the least likely to spend extra money they get as a result of a tax cut, and are more likely to save it or invest it offshore. Those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, meanwhile, are the most likely to spend transfer payments they receive from the government."

-Huffington Post

"Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it
is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the
1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP
increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was
1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive
evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the
top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax
rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top
tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families
increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009
recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with
regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how
the economic pie is sliced. "

-From the Sept. 14th Study.