Freedom of Speech versus Religious Freedom

[Winstonm]

I think it is reasonable to construe "Repent or be Damned" as a warning of the long term consequences of a life w/o God. In fifteenth century Spain, I think it could sensibly be construed as a threat to join the church, pray often, and give money, or else. Context counts.

 

This is another good point IMO.

 

Whether or not any actionable cause would have to be dependent upon damages and without the 15th century-Spain-type background (which still lives in some fundamentalist evangelical Protestant adaptations) it would be impossible I think to prove damages.

 

Sounds like a good case for the next Boston Legal broadcast.

[Lobowolf]

Although they aren't absolutes, in the USA anyway, you have a Constitutionally protected right to free speech and free exercise of religion. You don't have a right not to be offended.

 

I hope it stays that way.

[luke warm]

An argument for status quo won't win, though.  I am fairly confident that it is a given that supply-side Reaganomics is a failure and laissez-faire capitalism

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

As to the second question - you are kidding, right?

The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7,500, according to Realcomp, a listing service.

kidding? not really link... there are many more comparisons, but i know you wouldn't accept some (cato institute, etc)

i think you're right, but if winston thinks a church's weekly message, displayed on private property, is actionable it makes me wonder why he didn't mention things such as tobacco (or booze, or fast food) ads on public property... it certainly makes it appear that he is unreasonable, though i suppose the same could be said of most biases

 

A simple question. Where do you get this: "it certainly makes it appear that he is unreasonable, though i suppose the same could be said of most biases" when you read this?

 

what if I were offended by a message? Would I have legal recourse?

 

Is it unreasonable to ask the question?

of course not, it's just that i never heard you ask that question in any other context, such as fast food or cigarettes or liquor

[PassedOut]

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

Reagan got the economy going again with huge amounts of deficit spending, so that strategy clearly works.

[Winstonm]

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

Reagan got the economy going again with huge amounts of deficit spending, so that strategy clearly works.

You forgot to add "in the short term" after "definately works".

[Winstonm]

there are many more comparisons, but i know you wouldn't accept some (cato institute, etc)

 

You are certainly correct about Cato Institute - but what you may not know is that I discount any view that appears to me to consistently slant its presentation. I also look at the data myself.

 

Those whose analysis I tend to accept are those who do nothing more than try to analyze data and put it into historical perspective, regardless of whatever concept that supports - Nouriel Roubini comes immediately to mind in this regard, as well as Barry Ritholtz. The folks at Calculated Risk are good at this, too.

 

f course not, it's just that i never heard you ask that question in any other context, such as fast food or cigarettes or liquor

 

Most likely because those are not exactly the same questions - the question I am posing is whether free speech or freedom of religion covers the message of a religious message sign or is it possible that these signs may not be covered under these rights and might be challenged.

 

I think there have been challenges to the rights of advertisers - I suppose we could change the question to be about an atheist bookstore owner who places a sign outside his store that offends theists - but I didn't drive by that bookstore on the way home so it didn't come to mind.

[luke warm]

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

Reagan got the economy going again with huge amounts of deficit spending, so that strategy clearly works.

the spending came later, the tax cuts came immediately

[hrothgar]

An argument for status quo won't win, though.  I am fairly confident that it is a given that supply-side Reaganomics is a failure and laissez-faire capitalism

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

As to the second question - you are kidding, right?

The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7,500, according to Realcomp, a listing service.

kidding? not really link... there are many more comparisons, but i know you wouldn't accept some (cato institute, etc)

Mike want to take a close look at the date of that article you're citing, starting with the following

 

Obama inherits worst recession since Reagan

THE MELTDOWN EFFECT

Bloomberg / Washington November 09, 2008, 0:35 IST

 

In the last three and a half months, the severity of the downturn has been upgraded significantly. For example, this article states that

 

The economy will shrink at a 3.5 per cent annual rate in the fourth quarter and at a 2 per cent pace in the first quarter of 2009, nearly twice prior estimates

 

The current estimates suggest that the contraction was actually 6.2%. People are still benchmarking this against 1982, however, nearly everyone thinks that this is going to be MUCH MUCH worse. (As a practical example, the Big Three automakers and the banking sector didn't all go bankrupt in 1982)

[PassedOut]

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

Reagan got the economy going again with huge amounts of deficit spending, so that strategy clearly works.

You forgot to add "in the short term" after "definately works".

Yes, it is a short term solution, and I should have said so (even in a one-liner post).

 

Reagan continued to stimulate the economy through deficit spending long after the recession had ended, believing that "voodoo economics" would save the day. To be fair, though, it's not clear how much analytical ability Reagan retained at the age he took office: his budget director, David Stockman, documented the old actor's inability to grasp the most rudimentary financial concepts.

 

the spending came later, the tax cuts came immediately

The spending was already in place, so the tax cuts created deficits immediately.

 

Unlike Reagan and the voodoo economics people, Obama has made clear that he understands that the deficit spending must be reversed after this crisis. Because of the huge unnecessary Bush deficit he inherited, Obama's task is much more difficult.

 

But everyone with common sense knew that the Bush tax cuts were going to lead to the present situation. Fortunately the US has a smart, honest, analytical president now to tackle it.

[luke warm]

the spending came later, the tax cuts came immediately

The spending was already in place, so the tax cuts created deficits immediately.

well this is simply not true... one of the things i disliked the most about reagan's 2nd term was the increase in spending, although i know the reasons for it... don't forget that when he took office we were not only in the midst of a recession, but interest rates were around 18 to 20%... the tax cuts are what got the economy moving, with the dow gaining 60% during his 1st term... has the dow even had an up day since obamba took office?

Unlike Reagan and the voodoo economics people, Obama has made clear that he understands that the deficit spending must be reversed after this crisis.

if this is true, why start out immediately adding a couple trillion in deficit spending?

[jdonn]

has the dow even had an up day since obamba took office?

I'm with you. Darn Obama for causing stocks to drop by the day! None of this would have ever even started had he not been intending to run for president after it began.

 

And what's the big idea of him causing the Dow to drop every single day of his presidency that the market was open like that! Well, except February 24. And February 18. And February 11. And February 6. And February 5. And February 3. And January 28. And January 27. And January 26. And January 21.

 

But every day except those!

 

Unlike Reagan and the voodoo economics people, Obama has made clear that he understands that the deficit spending must be reversed after this crisis.

if this is true, why start out immediately adding a couple trillion in deficit spending?

I see those words "after the crisis" included in the quote to which you replied. And yet it's as though you decided not to read them.

[mike777]

Jimmy:

 

 

It seems those who claim to believe in free markets, the free movement of capital are confused.

 

Bush in 2008 let Lehman go under but then it seems for the rest of 2008 Jan-DEC. he and others just had no clue.

 

With the Dow down 3000 points since the election and about 1400 points since the "official" change of economic power the New President seems just as lost. I think Ms. Roemer is a genius but what advice is she really giving this brilliant speech maker and Law Prof. What is the truly brilliant Summers saying? How does Geitner keep his job? My main point being if his brilliant advisers do research saying one thing and give conflicting "other" advice to the President...give the guy a break.

 

 

What we are doing with AIG and the auto companies seems insane.

If we need to let some banks go through FDIC receivership, RTC etc ok, lets do it now. At the very least the stockholders need to be wiped out and management changed.

 

AIG seems to be the biggest black hole why the taxpayer is involved I have no idea.

 

Much of his Education spending seems to be a giant black hole and a sop to the unions. I say this having been raised by a single mom who was a special ed teacher and a dues paying union member. I would prefer some expanded version of the GI Bill, much more school choice and more money for basic research grants. I grant ahead of time much of this will be a complete waste but I believe the benefits will be huge.

 

Why are are bailing out local and state spending programs with federal money I have no idea.

 

OTOH the fed seems to have opened the money flood gates. I think this is a great.

I grant this will lead to inflation problems down the road...ok..I choose to live with that problem later.

 

 

Deficit spending on infrastructure, defense, basic research and yes pork to grease the wheels...ok I agree. 8600 Earmarks that total what 5b or 10B..ok....

 

Increasing by vasts amount of money a social safety net..ok

 

 

Ultimately if we need a countrywide debate on who is better at allocating capital, the government or free markets, we should start now.

 

I do not have the best source of data but if those making over 388, 000$ have about 1.7 trillion in adjusted gross income(AGI) we need a debate on how much of that should go towards this crises or if that is even enough at 100% rates.

If we are going to redistribute income, I still prefer confiscating it through the gift tax, closing the numerous loopholes including nontaxable life insurance payouts, deductions for gifts to charities, foundations, church/temple/mosque, family and friends and of course the death tax. If you give, ty, but pay 70%. If you spend we confiscate through a sales tax, gas tax, car tax, property tax..etc...

 

 

btw yet another Obama guy did not pay his taxes.....see the trade rep.

If we are going to raise rates and people just cheat more.....Houston we got a problem.

[PassedOut]

the spending came later, the tax cuts came immediately

The spending was already in place, so the tax cuts created deficits immediately.

well this is simply not true...

I'm sorry, but you are plain wrong about that.

 

Reagan cut taxes without making spending cuts, so the deficit began to increase immediately. You can see the resulting increases in the US national debt in this chart: Reagan tax cuts resulted in immediate sharp debt increases

 

The Reagan tax cuts, plus his huge increases in military spending, did indeed stimulate the economy tremendously, as economic principles predict. And it's quite correct to use deficit spending to overcome a severe recession. The problem with Reagan was that his sustained deficits simply forced future taxpayers to foot the bill for the 1980s prosperity.

 

It's also a fact that the democrats in congress during Reagan's years added spending that he did not request. About 90% of the deficits were due to Reagan's budgets and 10% to additions proposed (in most cases) by democrats.

 

Let me emphasize that I did not and do not approve of wasteful spending by either party. Neither side is blameless. But glossing over the fact that Reagan bought prosperity in the 1980s by massive deficit spending makes it more difficult for our current president to maintain the support he needs to combat the crisis we face now.

[mike777]

the spending came later, the tax cuts came immediately

The spending was already in place, so the tax cuts created deficits immediately.

well this is simply not true...

I'm sorry, but you are plain wrong about that.

 

Reagan cut taxes without making spending cuts, so the deficit began to increase immediately. You can see the resulting increases in the US national debt in this chart: Reagan tax cuts resulted in immediate sharp debt increases

 

The Reagan tax cuts, plus his huge increases in military spending, did indeed stimulate the economy tremendously, as economic principles predict. And it's quite correct to use deficit spending to overcome a severe recession. The problem with Reagan was that his sustained deficits simply forced future taxpayers to foot the bill for the 1980s prosperity.

 

It's also a fact that the democrats in congress during Reagan's years added spending that he did not request. About 90% of the deficits were due to Reagan's budgets and 10% to additions proposed (in most cases) by democrats.

 

Let me emphasize that I did not and do not approve of wasteful spending by either party. Neither side is blameless. But glossing over the fact that Reagan bought prosperity in the 1980s by massive deficit spending makes it more difficult for our current president to maintain the support he needs to combat the crisis we face now.

Your point may be valid but I am not sure what your point is.....

 

In any case.......my point is.....1)cut marg. tax rates.......often...and super often 2) in super crises.....super duper expand money supply.....3) increase social safety net in dire times....(super expand defict)

 

 

4) if you want to make gift taxes 70% with zero examptions......lets discuss it....

[PassedOut]

In any case.......my point is.....1)cut marg. tax rates.......often...and super often 2) in super crises.....super duper expand money supply.....3) increase social safety net in dire times....(super expand defict)

 

 

4) if you want to make gift taxes 70% with zero examptions......lets discuss it....

My point was that Jimmy was wrong to say that Reagan's tax cuts did not produce immediate deficits.

 

I do agree with the Jeffersonian principle of taxing gifts and inheritances heavily so that each generation pulls its own weight. And social and infrastructure spending should definitely increase markedly in dire times.

 

However, the debt incurred during hard times must be eliminated in the good times. So I don't see that cutting marginal tax rates is good policy, because it's hard to reverse those cuts later.

[mike777]

In any case.......my point is.....1)cut marg. tax rates.......often...and super often 2) in super crises.....super duper expand money supply.....3) increase social safety net in dire times....(super expand defict)

 

 

4) if you want to make gift taxes 70% with zero examptions......lets discuss it....

My point was that Jimmy was wrong to say that Reagan's tax cuts did not produce immediate deficits.

 

I do agree with the Jeffersonian principle of taxing gifts and inheritances heavily so that each generation pulls its own weight. And social and infrastructure spending should definitely increase markedly in dire times.

 

However, the debt incurred during hard times must be eliminated in the good times. So I don't see that cutting marginal tax rates is good policy, because it's hard to reverse those cuts later.

do you really want to discuss Jeffersoin principles...I assume you joke...........

 

Otoh if you want to do something....anything with wealth...what?

 

3) do you wish to live in the real world or the world of 2009?

[Winstonm]

This is Robert Kuttner's testimonoy to the House Financial Committee - it gives a good presentation of how we got where we are. There is certainly enough blame on both parties for falling into the Minsky Moment trap.

 

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...n_1929_and_2007

[PassedOut]

do you really want to discuss Jeffersoin principles...I assume you joke...........

 

Otoh if you want to do something....anything with wealth...what?

 

3) do you wish to live in the real world or the world of 2009?

It's hard to follow the comments you post late at night. However, I was thinking of Jefferson in this vein: Common Sense

 

Economic historians have caricatured American economic thought as a conflict between Jeffersonian democratic egalitarians and Hamiltonian free market capitalists. But as historian Joseph J. Ellis observed, "the projection of their debate as the archetypal dialogue in American political culture has become a historical cartoon." In reality, both of these "founding brothers" shared a concern for balancing an unjust concentration of political power with liberty and free enterprise. Hamilton was more enamored with concentrations of economic power because they formed capital, or the "synergy of aggregated investment." Yet both Hamilton and Jefferson shared a rejection of the aristocratic economic system that allowed a few people to appropriate the fruits of labor of others, resulting in an unjust accumulation of property and wealth.

Of course our society in 2009 is much more urban than in Jefferson's time, but the basic problems of preventing the unjust accumulation of wealth, such as through inheritance, remain.

[Winstonm]

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

 

The 1980s recession began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982.

 

I could pound you about how Reagan did not inherit a recession and how the recession started when he was President, yada yada yadi, but the truth is that neither Reagan nor Carter is responsible as both had to deal with the results poor policy choices from earlier days that left Carter to deal with horrific inflation that was not his doing - which Volcker throttled by driving the economy into a harsh recession - and it was that recession that occured on Reagan's watch.

 

The beast with which we now are dealing is much, much more severe, closer to the deflationary Lost Generation of Japan if not a Lesser Great Depression.

[Winstonm]

Yet both Hamilton and Jefferson shared a rejection of the aristocratic economic system that allowed a few people to appropriate the fruits of labor of others, resulting in an unjust accumulation of property and wealth

 

"An economic system that allows a few people to appropriate the fruits of labor of others" is a perfect description of the Greenspan philosophy of wealth building, bought into by Reagan and the Bushes and to a great extent Clinton, too.

[luke warm]

The 1980s recession began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982.

ok, well i'm not an economist so it's possible my use of terms is inaccurate, but what is it called when inflation, unemployment, and interest rates are all double digits (and necessities, such as gasoline, were at about the same price as today)? if it isn't 'recession' it must be something equally uncomfortable

Yet both Hamilton and Jefferson shared a rejection of the aristocratic economic system that allowed a few people to appropriate the fruits of labor of others, resulting in an unjust accumulation of property and wealth

"An economic system that allows a few people to appropriate the fruits of labor of others" is a perfect description of the Greenspan philosophy of wealth building, bought into by Reagan and the Bushes and to a great extent Clinton, too.

i don't personally put either bush in the reagan camp, but that's just me

Jimmy:

 

It seems those who claim to believe in free markets, the free movement of capital are confused.

 

Bush in 2008 let Lehman go under but then it seems for the rest of  2008 Jan-DEC. he and others just had no clue.

 

With the Dow down 3000 points since the election and about 1400 points since the "official" change of economic power the New President seems just as lost. I think Ms. Roemer is a genius but what advice is she really giving this brilliant speech maker and Law Prof. What is the truly brilliant Summers saying?  How does Geitner keep his job? My main point being if his brilliant advisers do research saying one thing and give conflicting "other" advice to the President...give the guy a break.

 

What we  are doing with AIG and the auto companies seems insane.

If we need to let some banks go through FDIC receivership, RTC etc ok, lets do it now. At the very least the stockholders need to be wiped out and management changed.

 

AIG seems to be the biggest black hole why the taxpayer is involved I have no idea.

 

Much of his Education spending seems to be a giant black hole and a sop to the unions. I say this having been raised by a single mom who was a special ed teacher and a dues paying union member. I would prefer some expanded version of the GI Bill, much more school choice and more money for basic research grants. I grant ahead of time much of this will be a complete waste but I believe the benefits will be huge.

 

Why are are bailing out local and state spending programs with federal money I have no idea.

 

OTOH the fed seems to have opened the money flood gates. I think this is a great.

I grant this will lead to inflation problems down the road...ok..I choose to live with that problem later.

 

Deficit spending on infrastructure, defense, basic research and yes pork to grease the wheels...ok I agree.  8600 Earmarks that total what 5b or 10B..ok....

 

Increasing by vasts amount of money a social safety net..ok

 

Ultimately if we need a countrywide debate on who is better at allocating capital, the government or free markets, we should start now.

 

I do not have the best source of data but if those making over 388, 000$ have about 1.7 trillion in adjusted gross income(AGI) we need a debate on how much of that should go towards this crises or if that is even enough at 100% rates.

If we are going to redistribute income, I still prefer confiscating it through the gift tax, closing the numerous loopholes including nontaxable life insurance payouts, deductions for gifts to charities, foundations, church/temple/mosque, family and friends and of course the death tax.  If you give, ty, but pay 70%. If you spend we  confiscate through a sales tax, gas tax, car tax, property tax..etc...

 

btw yet another Obama guy did not pay his taxes.....see the trade rep.

If we are going to raise rates and people just cheat more.....Houston we got a problem.

qft

[Lobowolf]

the basic problems of preventing the unjust accumulation of wealth, such as through inheritance, remain.

I wouldn't entirely agree with this characterization. Agreed, an inheritor of wealth has done nothing to earn it, and in that sense, his/her advantage over another is "unjust." OTOH, one of the inherent rights associated with money is the right to dispose of it as you see fit. Warren Buffet's favorite charities do better than mine, at least with respect to their knowing him and me; that's just a fact of life. So I do believe that it is "just" that someone be able to pass along the fruits of his labor (or, yes, even his good fortune), and I don't see why death should magically entitle someone else (or the government's choice of which someone elses) to that wealth. Many people deliberately sacrifice a great deal for the benefit of their children; I see more injustice when those plans are thwarted via government redistribution.