The Fruits of Apostasy: Politcal Correctness

[_zeezrom]

Droopy,
Do you think King Benjamin would have supported a progressive tax structure?

If Joseph Smith made the Presidential nomination, how would he tax people who owned vast amounts of land?

When you say it was a long time ago and therefore irrelevant to today's political climate, are you suggesting that the republican aligned LDS doctrine come from 20th century prophets, from Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, or from the New Testament?

What is the source of these politically conservative LDS doctrines?

[_bcspace]

What is the source of these politically conservative LDS doctrines?

Enrichment section L of the D&C Institute manual?

[_moksha]

Is it possible that under Satan's constant vigilance, conservative politics have been introduced into the Church in order to subvert its religious missions? I suspect that some measure of this might even be found when you hear Church leaders proclaiming, "We know how to get things done" in the realm of political subterfuge.

[_madeleine]

Is there something about apostasy qua apostasy (not mere inactivity in the church, even over very long spans of time, but apostasy in its core aspect) that either generates or biases one toward leftist ideas, thinking, and psychology?

Apostate here. (hi)

*shrug* I'm either a pro-life democrat or a labor and social supporting republican. I don't vote for one party. I make myself aware of where the candidates stand on all the issues, and then decide from there. I haven't found anything that attracts me to libertarianism...it seems to me to be the "all about me and everyone else can stick it" party, with nothing redeeming about it. :)

Peace.

[_bloggernacleburner]

Droopy, the plural of anecdote is not data.

You are under the impression that Political Correctness causes with Apostasy or Apostasy causes political correctness. I presented you with some data that correlates.

Do you not understand the difference?

I follow a veritable vomit of posts of the Mormon internet, from Mormon anarchists to the Mormon Worker. Every single point you put down in your OP can be reconfigured to point to the same issues on the Mormon Right. Indeed, the right wing consensus in Utah seems to be fraying a little with the Church's repeated statements on immigration. There is plenty of discussion on the Mormon right about the occasional visit from a bishop over 'Talking too much about Ezra Taft Benson'.

I would instead posit that the Church is primarily concerned with 1) publicity and 2) extremism.

Now note the form of this argument Droop. I am not trying to prove that apostasy biases one towards the right. I'm calling into doubt your entire premise that right v. left matters to Mormon leaders. Mormon leaders primary concerns are conformity, obedience and dependability.

[_Kishkumen]

I am not going to read another long Droopy post. Sorry, Droops.

Suffice it to say that I can agree that "political correctness" is part of a constellation of beliefs and sensibilities that started on the left, but have now been well exploited by the right as well. Because it springs from a way of seeing the world that is not self evidently true, those who do not agree with those beliefs will not see the need to be "politically correct."

The power of politically correct speech, however, is that it better accommodates the changing realities of our diverse and interconnected world than the old way of speaking and writing. We now realize, much better than we used to, that other people are worthy of the same respect and dignity that we often reserved for ourselves. For this reason, I strive to show people respect in the way I deal with them and talk about them. If I am branded a leftist for so doing, fine.

[_Kevin Graham]

According to Droopy, the view that tax cuts do not boost revenues is a minority view held only by "leftists." But contrary to Loran's blind devotion to the outdated doctrine of tax cuts = higher revenues, these baseless predictiions are gradually being abandoned by economists even on the extreme Right.

It is important to first understand that those who argued Tax cuts = higher revenues, never really believed their own mantra. The true prophet behind this theology is Milton Friedman, and if you pay attention to his interviews you can see that the reasoning for tax cuts has absolutely nothing to do with boosting revenues. For example, Milton Friedman in Wall Street Journal 1/19/2003, admits that tax cuts result in deficits, and that this is a good thing because it would force government to spend less. This goes along with Dick Cheney's remark that "deficits don't matter" when Democrats were urging the Bush administration to reduce spending.

How can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For government, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective--I would go so far as to say, the only effective--restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature.

Friedman, 9/16/03, admits that Government revenues can only be reduced by cutting taxes:

The question is, "How do you hold down government spending?" … The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.

So the real reason they seek to reduce taxes is to "starve the beast" they fear; and of course that beast is government. This is also evident from the comments of Conservative Economist Robert Barro, January 06, 2004:

The reason I like the [Bush] tax cuts is twofold. One is that I think it improves the incentives for the longer run economic performance for growth. And secondly, that I favor a smaller size of the government and ... a way to accomplish that is to starve the government of revenue and I look at this as further going in that direction.

Since the Bush Tax cuts have proved to be an embarrassment to the entire Conservative economic philosophy, many have tried to distance themselves from it. University of Michigan economist Joel Slemrod [url=http://www.edlotterman.com/RWE/Articles/20100314.htm]is adamant on one of the key economic issues of our day/url]:

'Tax cuts don't pay for themselves! Period!'
Hardly any economist would disagree. This is true for Republicans as well as Democrats. It is also true regardless of whether they describe themselves as NeoClassical, New Classical, Rational Expectations, Monetarist, Keynesian, Austrian or New Institutional economists.

Yet, for a substantial portion of the general public, the idea that cutting tax rates will increase tax revenues has become an article of faith. The following anonymous comment to an online Associated Press story is typical: "The only way our government can create jobs is to cut taxes. It's been proven over and over again. Cutting taxes also increases government revenue."

The phenomenon of economists sharing a broad consensus on some issue that is at odds with the beliefs of many in the general public is not rare. Since 1776, most economists have believed free international trade can benefit all countries involved. But many in the general public don't buy that. For 90 years, virtually all have agreed that the way to deal with external costs like pollution is to tax whatever causes it. This is still scoffed at by noneconomists from both ends of the political spectrum.

============
According to conservative economist Mark Zandy of Moody's economy.com, the Bush tax cuts will cost the country 71 cents for every dollar cut. That's right, the return on the cost is negative.
============
The Washington Post, October 17, 2006:
"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."

Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001.

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.
===============
According to Matt Nesvisky of the National Bureau of Economic Research of NBER, a working paper by Gregory Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl, December 2004 notes:

some observers have suggested that tax cuts can generate so much economic growth that they may more than pay for themselves. Most economists are doubtful about either such extreme. The consensus view is that tax cuts indeed influence national income, but not to the extent that they are fully self-financing.
Mankiw and Weinzierl find that, in the long run, about 17 percent of a cut in labor taxes is recouped through higher economic growth. The comparable figure for a cut in capital taxes is about 50 percent.

Elsewhere they argue:

To what extent does a tax cut pay for itself? This question arises regularly for economists working at government agencies in charge of estimating tax revenues. Traditional revenue estimation, called static scoring, assumes no feedback from taxes to national income. The other extreme, illustrated by the renowned Laffer curve, suggests that tax cuts can generate so much economic growth that they completely (or even more than completely) pay for themselves. Most economists are skeptical of both polar cases. They believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing

From his blog:

Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes.

Andrew Samwick, Chief Economist on Staff of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2004, offered a New Year's Plea:

To anyone in the Administration who may read this blog, I have one small wish for the new year. Please stop your boss from writing or saying the following: "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues." You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

Henry Paulson, Treasury Secretary for Pres. George W. Bush

Paulson during his confirmation hearings in 2006, per article in Market Watch (from Dow Jones): Paulson rejected notions that tax cuts pay for themselves…"As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves," Paulson said, echoing the opinion of most economists.
=============
Edward Lazear, current Chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers
The Christian Science Monitor, June 25, 2007:

Another supply-side theory, now less popular, was voiced by Bush in February 2006: "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase." The theory is that with lower marginal tax rates, people work harder and longer, thereby raising their income – and paying more taxes on it. But even topBush economic advisers now reject that thesis. "I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves," Edward Lazear, the current chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, has stated.

Lazear, Testimony before the Senate Budget Committee “State of the Economy and the Budget”, September 28, 2006:
To determine the effect of tax cuts on revenue, we need to ask, “What would revenues have been absent these cuts?” This question can be answered by providing estimates of what revenue would have been had we not cut taxes...Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data [we have] presented above do not support this claim.
===============
Alan Greenspan at House Budget Committee hearing, 9/8/04:

[Rep. Jeb] Hensarling [R-TX]: … the latest reports I see from Treasury indicate that revenue is actually up since we passed the latest round of tax relief…seemingly suggesting that at least in this particular case, that maybe tax relief did help ignite an economic recovery that has added revenues to the Treasury and actually helped become part of the deficit solution as opposed to part of the deficit p roblem. So my first question is, have you seen these reports from Treasury, and do you concur that revenues are up now over what they were a year ago?

Mr. Greenspan:Well, Congressman, I think the general conclusion about the fact that revenues are lower than they would otherwise be without the tax cut, but higher because of the tax cut, is best described by saying that a tax cut will immediately lose revenue, and then to the extent that it increases economic activity and generates a larger revenue base will gain some of it back. It is very rare, and very few economists believe that you can cut taxes and you will get the same amount of revenues. But it is also the case that if you cut taxes, you will not lose all the revenue that is implicit in the so-called static analysis.

========
From The Economist magazine:
Jan 12th 2006:

A surprising rise in tax revenue last year has pushed this chutzpah even further. Mr Bush last week implied that the supply-side fantasy might hold after all: tax cuts do pay for themselves. “There's a mindset in Washington that says, you cut the taxes, we're going to have less money to spend,” he noted contemptuously, before claiming that recent experience suggested otherwise. Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr Bush's tax cuts will pay for themselves. A recent study from the Congressional Budget Officesuggested that, after ten years, up to one-third of the cost of a 10% cut in income taxes can be recouped from higher economic growth. That fraction may be higher for cuts in taxes on capital alone. But it is nowhere near 100%....All told, Mr Bush’s tax policy may have played a modest role in boosting a temporary revenue surge. But that is very different from suggesting, as the White House does, that tax cuts were the main cause or that they permanently pay for themselves. Most serious economists have long laughed at the idea that Mr Bush’s tax cuts raise revenue. Now, it seems, the president’s own boffins agree. Deep in the Mid-Session Review is a claim that the Bush tax cuts could eventually raise the level of GDP by 0.7%, a relatively modest effect, and one that itself depends on the tax cuts being financed by lower spending.

======
Bruce Bartlett Bruce Bartlett “is an economist associated with supply-side economics. He was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.” Bartlett, National Review Online (NRO Financial), March 5, 2003:

...the Laffer Curve is correct in theory — it simply shows that at a 100% tax rate or a 0% tax rate no revenue is collected. Every economist knows that this is true. But of course, we are nowhere near a 100% tax rate...such that one could expect an across-the-board reduction in tax rates actually to raise revenue.

=====
Martin Feldstein (former chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, professor of economics at Harvard and an adviser to the Bush 2000 campaign). Testimony before Senate Budget Committee regarding President Bush’s 2001 Tax Cut Proposal, February 13, 2001:

The true cost of reducing the tax rates is likely to be substantially smaller than the costs projected in the official estimates. Studies of past tax rate reductions show that taxpayers respond to lower marginal tax rates in ways that increase their taxable income. They work more and harder and take more of their compensation in taxable form and less in fringe benefits. At the National Bureau of Economic Research we have used a large publicly available sample of anonymous tax returns to estimate how the actual revenue loss would compare to the official estimates that ignore this behavioral response. Our analysis shows that when the proposed Bush tax cuts are fully phased in the net revenue loss would be only about 65 percent of the officially estimated costs... Because of the timing of the tax cut and the taxpayers' lags in responding to it, I think a safer estimate of the total 10-year revenue loss would be about $1.2 trillion

Martin Feldstein in The Washington Post, April 30, 2003:

While any tax rate cut that could completely pay for itself would be unusual, studies of past tax reforms show that taxpayer behavior can offset a substantial portion of estimated revenue loss.

=========
Charles Wheehan, his Ph.D. is in public policy from the Harris School at the University of Chicago. His favorite economist is Gary Becker, favorite economics writer is Milton Friedman and favorite economics blogger is Greg Mankiw, all conservative economists), March 13, 2007:

The Biggest Economics Charlatans: The supply-siders who continue to insist, in the face of all evidence and academic opinion to the contrary, that a country like the United States can boost tax revenues by cutting taxes. Based on my past skepticism of the supply-siders, I know that I'll soon be bombarded by angry comments and emails pointing out government revenues went up after some favorite tax cut, such as the Reagan or Bush tax cuts. But that alone tells us nothing, as government revenues always trend up due to inflation and economic growth. The appropriate question is not whether government revenues were higher after the tax cut than before, but rather whether revenues are higher than they would have been in the absence of the tax cut. All credible evidence on this subject says that there are a lot of good things about tax cuts, but raising extra revenue is not one of them.

Time Magazine (by Justin Fox, business and economics columnist at Time, formerly at Fortune), 12/6/07:

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to.

[_Hoops]

How come Mr. Graham never has any supporting documentation for his assertions?

[_Kevin Graham]

How come Mr. Graham never has any supporting documentation for his assertions?

:)

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, I know you'll accept the facts as they are when I present them, because you actually do the necessary legwork to check the sources. Obama has in fact cut taxes for 95% of working Americans. This is really beyond dispute for economists and Tax professionals, and even Droopy's preferred sources haven't been able to come up with enough subterfuge to escape this reality. You say he would raise taxes if he had his way, but this is only true to the extent that he wanted to raise taxes below Reagan levels, only for the richest 5%. The hard reality is that income taxes have been lowered for most working Americans since Obama has been in office, and contrary to your suspicions, this isn't due to Bush's policies, or to Obama's forced compromises and negotiations with Republican legislators (as the only taxes they've ever been interested in lowering are those for their main constituents, the richest 5%).

Yes this is true but the cuts have been nominal. Keep in mind that Obama came into office with rates over all fairly low especially for the middle class and lower. And this was a result of Bush tax rates. I think you know about 47% of Americans pay no tax. This again is due to the lower rates from the Bush area, an expanded Earned Income Credit from Obama and the Work to Pay Credit from Obama.

Politifact addressed the Obama-Tax myths on a couple of occasions, here and here. The miracle of RIght Wing propaganda is that despite the fact that 95% of working families saw a significant tax cut thanks to Obama, only 12% realize their taxes have been cut. But this is a testament to the power of propaganda. Fox News can convince ignorant folks like droopy that he's paid more in taxes even as his tax return reflect a very different reality. Specifically, from the link above:

A $400 cut may be helpful but it is not a large cut.

He asked for tax cuts of $500 per worker per year; Congress agreed to $400. The tax cuts -- called Making Work Pay -- were implemented in early 2009 and people saw small increases in their paychecks.

Yes.

This might not seem like a lot of money to some, but to most Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck, it means a great deal. For instance, $400 is enough to pay a family's grocery bill for a couple of months at least, but you already know this.

$400 for month of groceries perhaps. But keep in mind that $400 was seen in paychecks over the year. So someone who is paid bi-weekly saw $15.38 more per pay check.


And yes Obama was not proposing to Change rates for anyone under $250k. The Bush tax cuts under that amount would have stayed intact.

However tax on Capital Gains and Dividends would have increased for everyone. I know more wealthy people have more cap gains and divs (this is why Buffet has a lower overall rate-most of his income is from Capital Gains and Divs) but this still helps the middle class to some extent.

As for the church making more exmo's and atheists than it does Mormon i think that is hyperbole. Convert and birth rates are still higher than exits.

It wasn't intended to be hyperbolic. I'm including convert baptisms along with those born into the Church. The fact is the Mormon Church loses more of its baptized members each year, than it retains.

Well I am not sure where you come up with this. The only numbers I can see our the net change in membership from year to year and it continues to increase. This birth and convert baptisms exceeds deaths and departures. Of course this is information from the Church. How many go inactive and leave their names on the record that are counted still from year to year who knows. And I was at a training session when Church membership was about 10 million and the GA said that 8%-10% of Church members are in the lost file. Thus they do not know where these people are. How many of them do not consider themselves LDS I do not know.