Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I give stats directly from the IRS and you say things like "but obviously a good deal of it is passive income and not "earned income". Without providing facts.
Yes, this is obvious to anybody that knows about business. I don't know the exact percentages though, the point is that the income claimed in Schedule E part II includes both passive and active partnership income/loss where as you were trying to push it all off as "earned income".
Also, for this income group most of these partnerships are likely to be some sort of investment partnership. It usually does not make much sense to file a partnership return for a large standard business.
Regardless, your suggestion that my statement is political is silly and apparently you don't apply the same rules to yourself. After all, my comments on this were in response to you suggesting that it was all "earned income". Did you cite any data that shows that none of it is passive income? Nope. You have an odd need to politicize everything, I don't care about right-wing vs left-wing nonsense.
The following articles say differently. Now you must find another piece of minutia to attempt to derail the thread.
None of this is suggesting that "deficits don't matter" or anything of that form. Trying to equate Keynesian theory with "deficits don't matter" or "deficits are good" is just a straw man.
None of this is suggesting that "deficits don't matter" or anything of that form. Trying to equate Keynesian theory with "deficits don't matter" or "deficits are good" is just a straw man.
So do they all talk about deficits being a bad thing?
So do they all talk about deficits being a bad thing?
Not so much a "bad" thing, as just a thing.
The Keynes model allows debt during hard times -- but also Requires surplus tax and surplus budgets during good times. It calms down the booms.
Maybe think of it as economic counter-weight.
While it works well on paper, the anti-tax folks hate the taxes during good times. So we still wind up with booms followed by bust -- and no reserve to cover the bust.
The Keynes model allows debt during hard times -- but also Requires surplus tax and surplus budgets during good times. It calms down the booms.
Maybe think of it as economic counter-weight.
While it works well on paper, the anti-tax folks hate the taxes during good times. So we still wind up with booms followed by bust -- and no reserve to cover the bust.
We have not paid down the debt in the good years so the whole argument is a moot point now.
Plus Keynes didn’t really focus on demographic and technological cycles which are much more powerful than government intervention.
I don't like either wing, I use the lables most people are familiar with.
Yes, I get it you're the guy that pretends to be "in the middle" or whatever else. But you are still politicizing matters like the best of them. You see, saying something that a left-winger or right-winger says does not mean you're politicizing a topic. You politicize a topic when you start to accuse people, as you have, of being "left-winger", etc.
Is it that difficult to just discuss the issues without bringing up politics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi
So do they all talk about deficits being a bad thing?
No because the reality is more complex than that, this is not an issue that can be reduced to chimp like "deficit god" vs "deficit bad" nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi
We have not paid down the debt in the good years so the whole argument is a moot point now.
What does this have to do with Keynes? Policy in the US over the last 30 years has primarily come from fresh-water economics, the ever growing deficits and current events if anything provide a rebuttal of these theories not Keynes. In contrast the deficits from the 30's and 40's were paid off over 20 years or so when Keynesian theory was more in fashion.
Yes, I get it you're the guy that pretends to be "in the middle" or whatever else. But you are still politicizing matters like the best of them. You see, saying something that a left-winger or right-winger says does not mean you're politicizing a topic. You politicize a topic when you start to accuse people, as you have, of being "left-winger", etc..
You are so sensitive, I make a little joke about your left wing status and you get all defensive, lighten up. Call me whatever you want, I am not even close to the middle, I am an extreme radical when it come to politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Is it that difficult to just discuss the issues without bringing up politics?.
When you talk about using the force of government to take money from peaceful people you are being political. Sorry, the reality is we can't get to your utopian dream of progressive taxes on the "rich" unless politics is involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
No because the reality is more complex than that, this is not an issue that can be reduced to chimp like "deficit god" vs "deficit bad" nonsense. .
Yes, complexity, hence why systems created by and guided by the elite are doomed to failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
What does this have to do with Keynes? Policy in the US over the last 30 years has primarily come from fresh-water economics, the ever growing deficits and current events if anything provide a rebuttal of these theories not Keynes. In contrast the deficits from the 30's and 40's were paid off over 20 years or so when Keynesian theory was more in fashion.
The problem I have with Keynes and in some ways Hayek is they don't take into account the underlying fundamentals of people. Millions of people making thousands of decisions each day in regards to themselves and their families that can't be plotted on a projection.
The 50's are nothing like today and we won't see an era like that for at least a decade or two. Plus the total debt (public and private) was much easier to tackle with a growing family formation base and a young demographic.
None of this is suggesting that "deficits don't matter" or anything of that form. Trying to equate Keynesian theory with "deficits don't matter" or "deficits are good" is just a straw man.
BS, here is the proof. It is your argument that is the staw man.
"This is why it is pure folly for the Obama administration to encourage talk about curbing the deficit. What’s needed is exactly the opposite: greater stimulus, greater deficits, and stimulus programs and budgetary expenditures"
"Q: Is national debt actually a good thing?
Typically we cringe when we hear how high the national debt has gotten and curse the drunken sailor-like spending habits of the government. But I read an article by a economist named Ken Fisher, who made a pretty compelling arguement that we actually want debt.
If you'd rather not read the entire thing, he basically says that when the government borrows money and then spends that money, it passes through many different people's hands in different sectors of the economy, thereby stimulating it."
"The notion that the national debt places an unfair burden on future generations is largely, not entirely but largely, political hooey! Let me say that again: the U.S. national debt should never be paid off. In fact, a worldwide financial disaster would be triggered if more than a fairly small fraction were ever paid off."
The one thing that makes our debt now different than our debt back in the 30's and 40's is that we were a nation of creditors back then, and are a nation of consumers now. We had more manufactoring and other countries owed us money. Look at now, where we owe others money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
