About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

November 4, 2012 11:56am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 4th November 2012

Sorry for late posting everyone – Kokila

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment137

Uncategorized
General Debate

Related Stories

General Debate 20 January 2013
General Debate 28 October 2016
General Debate 11 November 2012

Comments (137)

Login to comment or vote

bc

He might have been popular in 2004, bhudson, but that is not what Kea said. Here it is again: BUSH GOT INTO POWER BECAUSE HE WAS POPULAR.

After 9/11 it is not surprising that the American people would swing towards their president, especially a president who was saying all the right things to appeal to a nation wanting revenge.

It wasn’t until much later, the American people became more aware of how poorly Bush handled 9/11, and not surprisingly his popularity dropped then.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 7:20pm
Kevin

Well not exactly bc at 6.57

“They argue the best way to deal with this is smaller class sizes for struggling students to allow for more support and individualisation at school. They also want to see better funding for alternative and special education.”

This is the system we have now. It is enormously expensive with a vast disproportionate amount of resources going into the lower end, compared to your bright and average kids which must suffer a mediocre education because teachers are expected to cater for the lower end IN THE SAME CLASS because many teachers are ideologically opposed to streaming or special needs schools. It stinks.

“To say the teachers unions are for the status quo is just wrong.”

Correct, the do a lot of good work, including supporting teachers victimised by ludicrous PC government policies and incompetent management in schools.

“PPTA members work in schools trialling cutting edge teaching methods like Albany Senior High School.”

Laugh out Fecken loud. ASHS is and absolute distant routs waste of money. If has no class rooms,and all students,from year 11 to 13 are expected to be taught in large halls where there is so much noise they can’t hear anything. It is a new age touchy feely experiment which will go the same way as other dope had schools,like mangawhau and western springs where kids rule the roost, don’t have to attend classes, smoke, drink, etc. ASHS struggle to get enrolments from the junior high school because the parents want to send the kids to a proper school.

“Also to say that students today are performing at a lower level than in the past is a vast oversimplification.”

But true nonetheless. The only reason we still rate,in OECD comparisons is because we’ve watered everything down to keep the graduation statistics up.

Today we require much higher standards of students compared to a generation ago.

WTF?

NCEA Level 2 is now the minimum we expect of students before leaving school.

Oh ha ha ha, but level 2 NCAA is only compatible to the old school cert.

The new curriculum is world-leading and it focuses on learning skills rather than rote memorisation of material.

This is what they used to say 40 years ago when I was at school. It’s fine in principle for,the bright ones but is another disastrous piece of rate learned spew which is seriously impeding the progress of low to average achieving students who could otherwise have got good jobs if teaching was still skills based instead of methods base. Now many kids don’t have the basic skills they need to interpret the material they find in their “research”.

We are creating the skilled thinkers the 21st Century economy needs.

…. See what I mean, regurgitated from your predecessors….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 7:23pm
bhudson

It wasn’t until much later, the American people became more aware of how poorly Bush handled 9/11, and not surprisingly his popularity dropped then.

Given the way the polls have headed,you could substitute “…Obama handled the economy..” and your statement would appear to also describe 2012 perfectly.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 7:25pm
Kea

bc (599) Says:
November 4th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
He might have been popular in 2004, bhudson, but that is not what Kea said. Here it is again: BUSH GOT INTO POWER BECAUSE HE WAS POPULAR.

For once we agree bc !. Indeed I did say that. At one time he was one of the most popular presidents in American history. At his peak he was more popular than Obama. I supplied links in support of all this for your review.

I admit I was surprised myself, but that is the reality.

How do you explain the fact he was never defeated? A big “conspiracy” no doubt. Your view of Bush is simply what the media told you to think. It is not a reasoned position or even a real opinion. You are simply repeating what you have been told is the “correct” way to think. That is why when we look at the “evidence” your claims fall apart.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 7:29pm
Fletch

More voter intimidation, as the NAACP takes over a polling station and advocates for Obama, marching people to the front of the voting line – cutting in.

HOUSTON, TX – Friday afternoon at an early polling place located at 6719 W. Montgomery Road in Houston, NAACP members were seen advocating for President Barack Obama according to volunteer poll watchers on location at the time.

According to Eve Rockford, a poll watcher trained by voter integrity group True the Vote, three NAACP members showed up to the 139 precinct location with 50 cases of bottled water and began handing bottles out to people standing in line. While wearing NAACP labeled clothing, members were “stirring the crowd” and talking to voters about flying to Ohio to promote President Barack Obama.

After watching what was occurring, Rockford approached Polling Supervisor Rose Cochran about what she was seeing.

“I went to the polling supervisor and let her know that it was not appropriate that they were in the building handing out water. She ignored me. I repeated my statement. She told me that she would handle it. She did nothing. I then went to the assistant supervisor and he stood up, walked over to another table and then sat down. I then walked into the waiting room and they were reloading another dolly with more cases of water,” Rockford said in a True the Vote incident report.

After handing out water and advocating for President Obama, the NAACP members started handpicking and moving people to the front of a long voting line inside the polling place according to the incident report. After multiple complaints from voters about the line cutting, Rockford received a phone call from downtown telling her to “stand down.”

“All of the sudden one of the clerks, Dayan Cohen, said that someone wanted to speak to me on the phone. It was someone from downtown. I got on the phone and she said she was from downtown and that I needed to stand down and that it was okay for the NAACP to be within 100 ft. and they could hand out water. I told her that the NAACP was inside the building, wearing the NAACP clothing and caps and were handing out water and moving people from the back of the lines to the front of the lines,” Rockford said.

At this point, NAACP members were instructed to turn their clothing inside out, which they refused to do and said they weren’t going to stop their actions inside the polling place. Their behavior and actions to move people to the front of the line continued for the rest of the evening. Texas State Representative Sylvester Turner, a former Texas NAACP leader, was also seen outside the building talking with voters.

“The NAACP basically ran this poll location and the judges did nothing about it,” Rockford said.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/03/breaking_naacp_takes_over_polling_station_advocates_for_president_obama_at_houston_polling_location

These cheaters will do anything to get Obama back in again, because they know he is losing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 7:35pm
bhudson

I think Obama’s recent appearances have had him looking a bit complacent. His body language hasn’t really aligned with his (usual) masterful oratory, That has him coming across as arrogant, condescending, patronising.

That is all well and good for Democrat and Republican voters who aren’t going anywhere else, but if it registers the same with swing voters and ‘soft’ Democrats, he could find himself back on a passenger jet.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 7:36pm
Kea

The incredible media bias towards Bush turned me off the msm for good. It was a turning point. It is not that I was in favour of Bush, it was the blatant insulting bias that did it for me. It was one of the things that got me more interested in political events.

They showed, on prime time NZ TV News, comedy shows mocking Bush. Compared photos of him with a monkey (try that with Obama!). Every death in Iraq was attributed to Bush and placed on the front page, even if it was inter faith fighting between various Muslim groups. The most minor slip-ups were breathlessly reported as leading news items.

I was frankly insulted that they [media] would be so blatant in their unbalanced reporting and would even openly declare their preference for Obama or opposition to Bush. I decide what to think, not some bimbo on the TV. I want facts.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 7:41pm
Fletch

Reminder, that although Obama won in 2008, and it seemed a huge victory, it wasn’t by a landslide. He only won 52% of the popular vote.

Washington – Democrat Barack Obama won the popular vote by a six-point margin of 52 to 46% for vanquished Republican rival John McCain, US networks said on Wednesday.

Obama earned 62.98 million votes nationwide and McCain, 55.78 million, NBC reported.

The tally according to Fox News was 62.95 million for Obama and 55.75 million for McCain.

The winner of the popular vote does not always get the keys to the White House.

http://www.news24.com/World/USElections/Obama-won-52-of-popular-vote-20081105
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 7:46pm
grumpyoldhori

Kea Strange that, you are arguing that the yanks have suffered over 4000 dead and twenty thousand wounded from Iraq attacking the USA ?
It will be even better when the yanks invade Iran.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 7:50pm
bc

I thought I did explain in my 7.20pm post why Bush was on a wave of popularity in 2004 and got re-elected, Kea. It’s all to do with 9/11.

If he was able to run again in 2008, he would have been soundly defeated. Check out the approval rating graph in the link below:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110806/bushs-approval-rating-drops-new-low-27.aspx

It’s a gallup poll so you can’t say that it is left-wing propoganda!!
The surge in popularity spikes post-9/11. It is an obvious outlier, due entirely to 9/11.
Then it’s all downhill after that, to a low of 27% in 2008.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 7:52pm
Rightandleft

Kevin,

That isn’t the system we have now. At the moment the govt is cutting funding to special and alternative education and mainstreaming even more students without providing matching teacher aide hours or smaller class sizes to make up for it. Mainstreaming just doesn’t work, so I agree with you there. Luckily my school does believe in streaming and in fact most schools I know of do, at least for the top and bottom students.

Now personally I agree with you about Albany Senior, but what I’m always hearing from the right-wing on charter schools is that we have nothing to lose from giving things a try. I only disagree with them on charters because I’ve seen the research that says they have been tried already elsewhere and largely failed. With the Albany Senior model there is some evidence backing it, so let them have a go. It would drive me absolutely nuts as a teacher or a student, but maybe it works for some. ASHS is in direct competition with Glenfield, the Westlakes and even Rosmini/Carmel for the Catholics. If its methods don’t produce the results it will just keep shrinking. My main point was that the union isn’t totally averse to any experimenting, trialling of new methods in education, just against those which the research is soundly against.

As for NCEA being watered down, that isn’t really fair. The old system very unfairly required a certain percentage of students to fail. Sixth Form Cert was almost completely pointless because the grades were linked to performance in School Cert the year before. The system was designed when there was a steady supply of low-skilled manufacturing jobs available but those days are long gone and we need to give students better skills before they leave school. The perception that today’s students are dumber than previously is not backed by statistics. Every generation of adults has complained about the stupidity or poorer standards of the next generation but in fact educational attainment has only been improving with each generation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 7:55pm
Fairfacts Media

I see some Democrats have voted four times already!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/nc-democrat-says-hes-voted-four-times-for-obama-already-will-vote-5th-time-on-election-day/

No wonder Obama opposed efforts to make the voting system more secure.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:00pm
Kea

Ok bc.

Good to see you now acknowledge Bush’s popularity. You have come a long way, keep up the good work. Sure there were reasons for his popularity, just as there are reasons for Obama’s popularity.

Sadly your good worked slipped with this little gem: “If he was able to run again in 2008, he would have been soundly defeated.”

I gave an account of events that actually happened, with evidence. You can not try and discredit my facts with your speculation about things that never happened . Nice try though mate 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:04pm
nasska

Such an unfair world. When a man talks dirty to a woman its considered sexual harassment. When a woman talks dirty to a man its $5.50/min (higher rates from mobiles).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:04pm
Kevin

Rightandleft

Ok it seems we agree on most things. I know many teachers and my wife is one. the ppta has been very supportive of the teachers and the individual reps not ideologically driven. teachers as a group just want to teach better but are often hamstrung by PC government bureaucracy, incompetent management of the schools to a point bordering on corruption, and having to deal with social problems such as drugs, alcohol and supporting kids through their abortions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:08pm
Viking2

A beautiful fairy appeared one day to a Maori outside a Welfare office.

“Good man,” the fairy said, “I’ve been sent here by Prime Minister Key and told to grant you three wishes, since you just arrived in South Auckland from the Hokianga with your wife and eight children”.

The man told the fairy, “Well, where I come from we don’t have good teeth, so I want new teeth, maybe a lot of gold in them”.

The fairy looked at the man’s almost toothless grin and — PING !– he had a brand new shining set of gold teeth in his mouth!

“What else?” asked the fairy, “Two more to go”.

Rangi now got bolder. “I need a big house with a three-car garage on the water with eight bedrooms for my family and the rest of my relatives who still live up North.. I want to bring them all down here” — and — PING !– in the distance there could be seen a beautiful mansion with a three-car garage, a long driveway, and a walkout patio with a BBQ in an upscale neighborhood overlooking a bay.

“One more wish,” said the fairy, waving her wand.

“Yes, one more wish. I want to be like a real New Zealander with good clothes instead of these torn clothes. And I want to have white skin like the majority of New Zealanders” —and — PING ! — The man was transformed – wearing worn-out jeans, a “Yeah Right” Tui T Shirt, and a baseball cap. He had his bad teeth back and the mansion had disappeared from the horizon..

“What happened to my new teeth?” he wailed. “Where is my new house?”

THIS IS GOOD . . . …….. …….. …. … ………………….

NO, ACTUALLY THIS IS VERY GOOD . …. . . ………….. …… ….

The fairy said:
“Tough shit Rangi, now that you are a white New Zealander you have to fend for yourself”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:10pm
Reid

The incredible media bias towards Bush turned me off the msm for good.

What do you mean Kea? Bush 43 was the worst Pres ever. Bush 41 and Obama are currently competing for spots two and three in my book.

On another topic, has anyone been following the recent news of explosive traces found on the plane that blew up killing the Polish President and many senior figures?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i_VpUpDaiTZ48QBXITd7BfctB-eQ?docId=CNG.493b5bfef777e0c4e6e2103828c1614e.331

When a woman talks dirty to a man its $5.50/min (higher rates from mobiles).

I’ve never dialled an 0900 myself nasska, what’s it like? 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:11pm
bhudson

Reid,

You’re not seriously saying that you are only now thinking that perhaps it wasn’t a pure accident?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:14pm
Viking2

http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/34335-toys-apps-lead-top-10.html

Toys with apps.
aahhhhh
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:14pm
Fletch

Reid, actually Bush 43 wasn’t that bad, and I think history will show that.
Obama is the worst president the U.S has ever had.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:18pm
nasska

Reid

…”I’ve never dialled an 0900 myself nasska, what’s it like?”…..

Buggered if I can tell you. By the time I could afford a phone bill like that I’d sort of lost interest in talking about it anyway. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:18pm
bereal

How can you support a ” leader” who has so obviously lied to his people for political
reasons such has Obama lied to his people about Chris Stevens assasination and Bengahzhi.

Why would you support a proven liar ?

Probably the same people that in New Zealand sucked it up when Helen Clark looked into theTV cameras
and lied to New Zealand with a bare face, over and over again.

How can you have such political eye blinkers, and such low, non existing morals that you
still will support a proven liar. ?

Obama has now been found out to be a liar.

The American People are not that stupid.
Watch how they prove to be a Great Republic. 6/11
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:19pm
Viking2

Thought for evening.

Handle every stressful situation like a dog.

Piss on it and walk away.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:23pm
bereal

First intelligent comment you have ever made on Kiwiblog Viking2
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:25pm
RF

Apparently TV One is reporting a new poll resullt with labour slipping. What else is new.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:27pm
Viking2

New AB’s jersey.

http://screencast.com/t/4xwemQb7Ip8G
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:30pm
Viking2

Coming to a motorway near you. New design Merc.

http://screencast.com/t/1s5JIRxEpj

http://screencast.com/t/e4905IUxX5a

http://screencast.com/t/zky7HOMkGhE

http://screencast.com/t/zky7HOMkGhE
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:34pm
Viking2

bereal (2,257) Says:
November 4th, 2012 at 8:25 pm

First intelligent comment you have ever made on Kiwiblog Viking2

Thanks. Consider yourself pissed upon by a great big dirty stinking dog.

😆 😆
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:35pm
Luc Hansen

A truly interesting TRMS (The Rachel Maddow Show) from yesterday (Friday Yank time)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

An interview with Nate Silver

A report of Florida’s Republicans doing their best to rig the result of the election

A report of how Republicans close down inconvenient reports, with examples including how terrorist attacks rose with the advent of the War on Terror, adverse charter schools results and a Congressional Research Service report dissing the right wing wet dream that low marginal tax rates for the top income earners drives GDP growth i.e. no relationship

The summary of that report:

Income tax rates have been at the center of recent policy debates over taxes. Some policymakers
have argued that raising tax rates, especially on higher income taxpayers, to increase tax revenues
is part of the solution for long-term debt reduction. For example, the Senate recently passed the
Middle Class Tax Cut (S. 3412), which would allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire
for taxpayers with income over $250,000 ($200,000 for single taxpayers). The Senate recently
considered legislation, the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012 (S. 2230), that would implement the
“Buffett rule” by raising the tax rate on millionaires.

Other recent budget and deficit reduction proposals would reduce tax rates. The President’s 2010
Fiscal Commission recommended reducing the budget deficit and tax rates by broadening the tax
base—the additional revenues from broadening the tax base would be used for deficit reduction
and tax rate reductions. The plan advocated by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan
that is embodied in the House Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 112), the Path to Prosperity, also
proposes to reduce income tax rates by broadening the tax base. Both plans would broaden the tax
base by reducing or eliminating tax expenditures.

Advocates of lower tax rates argue that reduced rates would increase economic growth, increase
saving and investment, and boost productivity (increase the economic pie). Proponents of higher
tax rates argue that higher tax revenues are necessary for debt reduction, that tax rates on the rich
are too low (i.e., they violate the Buffett rule), and that higher tax rates on the rich would
moderate increasing income inequality (change how the economic pie is distributed). This report
attempts to clarify whether or not there is an association between the tax rates of the highest
income taxpayers and economic growth. Data is analyzed to illustrate the association between the
tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and measures of economic growth. For an overview of
the broader issues of these relationships see CRS Report R42111, Tax Rates and Economic
Growth, by Jane G. Gravelle and Donald J. Marples.

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

Yep, the GOP pressured the non-partisan Congressional think tank to withdraw a most inconvenient report.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 8:55pm
tom hunter

How do you know that those odds were wrong? Or to phrase it another way, what are the statistical chances that his prediction was right?

Well, there’s this thing called reality, where the GOP winning 67 seats was 100% fact!

Or to phrase it another way, Nate’s claim to fame was that he got 49 out of 50 states correct in 2008: I have not heard anybody asking what the statistical chances were that his prediction was right in that case.

That’s what so funny about people using Nate. None of them gave a stuff about that in 2008. All they cared about was that he made predictions that matched reality. When we look at 2010 where his predictions did not, all of sudden things are “complex” and lessons in high-school probability theory are required.

Snark aside, I think Luc has actually explained how probability theory works – inside the model. Great for physics where experiments can be run several million times and the model adjusted.

For unique events like political elections, not so much.

And that’s the argument that Jay Cost and Stephen Green are making. Silver’s approach looks very scientific but actually it’s not a good idea to build and rely on some sort of statistical probability model for an election. You can have some fun running up and down the scales of probability – 50% plus certainty the GOP will get 39 seats, 25% probability they’ll get 60 plus – and so forth. But it’s not very useful, even as a punditry argument tool, if the model has not actually captured reality.

Much better to use, as Green puts it, some judgement about things like turnout in making the predictions. If you want to then apply probabilities knock yourself out.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 9:06pm
Reid

You’re not seriously saying that you are only now thinking that perhaps it wasn’t a pure accident?

No I’ve always read it wasn’t bhudson. As they say in politics, if it happens, it was planned to happen. It was one of those things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM1TWiC7ik0

Reid, actually Bush 43 wasn’t that bad, and I think history will show that. Obama is the worst president the U.S has ever had.

Yes he was. He invaded a country that wasn’t responsible for 911 which cost a trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, for nothing, he actively promoted deregulation in the markets, he used obscure mechanisms to stop attempts to stop derivatives (Eliot Spitzer), all of which built on the bubble Clinton had allowed Greenspan to amass since the Dot-bomb bubble, which Bush’s entire team of economists “failed” to notice all of which resulted in the GFC which didn’t need to happen. That’s not a very good record, compared to any president.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 9:06pm
Fletch

Reid, Bush invaded for a very good reason. All the information he had, told him that Saddam had WMD’s – and most other countries of the world believed it, too.

Bush got congressional approval twice to go to war, in contrast with Obama going into Libya off his own bat with no approval at all – and look where it got us. A country likely controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, and dead Americans.

Bush did what he thought was right – and he played by the book, getting approval the way he was supposed to.

If anyone’s the warmonger, it’s Obama, who aided rebels likely affiliated with Al Qaeda. He did the same with Egypt. Now Egypt is likely run by the Muslim Brotherhood and the country will probably come under Sharia Law as well.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 9:21pm
Reid

Reid, Bush invaded for a very good reason. All the information he had, told him that Saddam had WMD’s – and most other countries of the world believed it, too.

Well according to the biography of the CIA Director when 911 happened, the Administration cherry-picked the intelligence. One rumour was that Powell didn’t stand for office in the second term because he was pissed off at being setup for the ridiculous mobile bio-weapon trucks at the UN. That was the extent of the cherry-picking.

If anyone’s the warmonger, it’s Obama, who aided rebels likely affiliated with Al Qaeda.

Yes I know Fletch. Obama’s a Muslim, that’s why.

But see what I mean about the quality of leadership. And people think Romney will be better? No, he won’t. Not. At. All.

Romney in my looking glass may well turn out to be the worst President ever, and won’t that be something.

BTW, did you know that one of the allegations for the real reason Iraq was invaded is that Saddam had a Stargate, which is a wormhole device that bends spacetime allowing instant inter-stellar travel just like on the TV series? The reason why this was an issue is because the Roswell crash wasn’t aliens but future humans from 30,000 years hence who’d come back to warn us of a critical phase in our development.

The issue was that in 2012 planet Niburu, which intersects our orbit every 32,000 years is due. Here’s a leaked NASA simulation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALOkrq0j_Ok&feature=related

The timeline we were on involved catastrophic interaction between Niburu, our active Stargates and the core of the Earth, resulting in geologic upheaval and destruction of immense magnitude. Therefore all Stargates had to be dismantled well in advance, and Saddam didn’t want to.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 9:48pm
tom hunter

A truly interesting TRMS (The Rachel Maddow Show) from yesterday (Friday Yank time)

So you’re the one watching.

And of course we’re back to the left-wing wet dream of super-high tax rates for the rich.

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%.

Decades have passed since the Laffer Curve became common knowledge – but not for Maddow and the gang. I don’t know if anybody has informed her, but that 90% tax rate was first cut by the Kennedy administration because they needed higher tax revenues, and even before Laffer became known the economists of the day argued that lowering the rate would actually increase the revenue. They were right and Kennedy’s tax cut (the highest level down to 70%) boosted revenues beyond what had been deemed possible by economic growth alone.

And since then the same thing has happened repeatedly when tax rates were dropped, most recently as a result of the Bush tax cuts in 2001. In fact in 2005, Federal tax revenues hit $2.15 trillion, the highest in US history. However, there probably is an upper boundary to the level of tax revenue that can be expected and in the USA. As the following article shows, with a great chart:

From 1930 to 2010, tax revenue collection in the United States has never topped 20.9%, averaging 16.5% of GDP over these 80 years. This comes despite the drastic historical fluctuation in the rate of taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

This seems to apply whether one is talking about individual income taxes, capital gains taxes, or corporate taxes – which is why the Canadian corporate tax rate is 15%, having recently been cut from 16.5%. In the USA it’s 35%. Canadians eh, capitalists red in tooth and claw.

I did love this bit immediately following the tax rates history:

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%.

That would be the 1950’s when Asia and Europe were still recovering from being wrecked in WWII and the USA was really the only major economy standing. It would have been hard not to get those sort of growth figures.

Funny how they skipped right over the stagflation decade of the 1970’s (the one with still high tax rates in place across the board), the go-go 1980’s (the one with dramatically lower tax rates), and the strong 1990’s (the one with tax rates that increased slightly), before arriving in the double OO’s. And of course we don’t see the start and end points for what counts as that decade, which started and ended in a recession. Cute way to cover the fact that after the Bush tax cuts the US experienced six years of economic growth from 2001 to 2007: 52 months of job growth to produce 8 million new jobs and almost all of that GDP growth rate. Quite an achievement after the Clinton recession and 9/11: pity the GOP let spending increase so much, followed by the even crazier Democrats in the House and Senate from 2007 onward.

In short – hard to pin lowered GDP on lowered tax rates.

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.

Great, so increasing tax rates won’t spark economic growth. Which leaves us with all the arguments about a widening wealth gap because the rich got bigger cuts. There’s just one little problem with that theory: The Bush tax cuts shifted the burden further to the rich.

But it’s an irrelevant argument to non-Keynesians anyway, because the myth is that tax cuts “put more money in people’s pockets”, when the fact is that tax cuts cause them to plow the extra money into wealth creation. That’s productive behaviour – which is what really drives an economy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 10:20pm
Luc Hansen

Tom

I don’t argue for super high tax rates for the rich and Maddow would fit very comfortably into the Nats over here. She’s a bit of a war whore, too, so you should get off on that! I do argue for higher tax rates than we have currently. To support our increasingly unequal society, those who garner the wealth should pay the most to keep society civil.

The Lafter curve is widely recognized as junk science. You are better than that.

There are lots of graphics in the report to refute your cherry picking nonsense.

The Bush years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

Not a bad summary, OK for a blog post. Better than Heritage. The FauxNews of FauxResearch.

when the fact is that tax cuts cause them to plow the extra money into wealth creation. That’s productive behaviour – which is what really drives an economy.

Yes Tom. Let’s ignore the fact that the empirical evidence just doesn’t support that statement. Higher inequality depresses economic growth aka wealth creation. Lots of good studies now to support that, including, of course, The Spirit Level.

Tax cuts are an inefficient stimulus. Tax cuts to the rich are the least efficient. Tax cuts to lower income earners are most stimulative but direct government, or government directed expenditure is the best bet. Not perfect, but that’s the human way.

Say, Tom, is it true that we are on the same page now as regards climate change? Let me know if you have entered the real world os science.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2012 11:10pm
tom hunter

The Lafter curve is widely recognized as junk science.

It’s Laffer – and it might have helped if you’d provided a link for that assertion as it’s one of the stupidest you’ve ever made – and in your case that’s saying something.

The Laffer curve is entirely mainstream because it derives from the very simple fact that tax – like anything else – involves supply and demand effects, and the following common-sense observations:

– Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate;

– Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and

– Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

Pretty simple really. That’s why tax cuts raise more money than tax rate increases: counter-intuitive but proven. The main arguments are around the “sweet spot” of the curve being revenue-maximisation vs economic growth. As Martin Feldstein of Harvard said:

Why look for the rate that maximizes revenue? As the tax rate rises, the “deadweight loss” (real loss to the economy) rises. So as the rate gets close to maximizing revenue the loss to the economy exceeds the gain in revenue…. I dislike budget deficits as much as anyone else. But would I really want to give up say $1 billion of GDP in order to reduce the deficit by $100 million? No. National income is a goal in itself. That is what drives consumption and our standard of living.

When you agree that super-high tax rates won’t work, you’re actually agreeing with the Laffer Curve.

Better than Heritage. The FauxNews of FauxResearch.

Shorter Luc: I hate that source but I got nuthin to argue against it’s facts and figures.

Tax cuts are an inefficient stimulus.

They’re not intended as a spending “stimulus” – and after the colossal failure of Obama’s Stimulus and his admission that there was not such a thing as “shovel-ready jobs” (which he’d have already known if he’d had even a little practical executive experience in government) – the implication that the government is an efficient stimulator of the economy is a sick joke. Even from Keynesian viewpoint, they’d have done better to shove that money straight into people’s pockets – which would be an effective tax cut.

Yes Tom. Let’s ignore the fact that the empirical evidence just doesn’t support that statement. Higher inequality depresses economic growth aka wealth creation. Lots of good studies now to support that, including, of course, The Spirit Level.

The empirical evidence is that countries with much higher levels of inequality than us have higher levels of economic growth if they know how to organise a lawful, capitalist economy. China is the most obvious but India and Brazil are up there too. Which is funny because the only link you have to back this up -The Spirit Level excluded countries like that – was utterly destroyed when it was presented. And Saunders was not the only one.

I see you in those comments as well, behaving as you are here, and indeed anywhere you comment: blustering assertions backed by nothing.

By contrast I have this:

Cutting sales and property tax rates generally induces smaller feedback effects because taxpayers do not respond by substantially expanding their purchases or home-buying. Income taxes have a higher feedback effect. Nobel Prize-winning economist Ed Prescott has shown a strong cross-national link between lower income tax rates and higher work hours.[9] Investment taxes have the highest feedback effects because investors quickly move to avoid higher-taxed investments. Not surprisingly, history shows that higher investment taxes deeply curtail investment and consequently raise little (if any) new revenue.

I put the Nobel Prize winning bit in there because I know how impressed you with that.

Say, Tom, is it true that we are on the same page now as regards climate change? Let me know if you have entered the real world os science.

At first I thought that was utterly off-topic, and then I saw some of the comments about you from The Spirit Level thread:, where you got so badly beaten up:

The Spirit Level has been criticised by prominent academics from the Left and Right. Even people who agree with the premise admit that the book doesn’t makes its case. You are ignoring all of them in favour of the people who have fabricated evidence that agrees with your biases.

You read some of the questions, saw some of the answers, but didn’t understand them, and missed the follow up questions where the original questioners pointed out that the “answers” didn’t really address the questions.

Climate models. Election models. Economic models. You constantly imply that you understand this stuff but when pressed you clearly don’t – and the sad/funny aspect of this is that when you’re confronted by people who do have backgrounds in science, stats, math and so forth, you actually don’t even understand how badly you’ve shown yourself up.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2012 12:29am
RightNow

Luc, I’m really disappointed you ran away and didn’t carry this on. Quitter.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2012 6:52pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« The MSD computer system

Slater on The Nation »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 03 June 2026
Another British policing scandal
General Debate 04 June 2026
A win for democracy
Meet the Greens - ACC
Democrat says lock up the Jews
$600k on a website for a building!
General Debate 02 June 2026
Abolishing HR
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour

Recent Posts

Abolishing HR 4 June 2026
General Debate 04 June 2026 4 June 2026
Meet the Greens – ACC 4 June 2026
Democrat says lock up the Jews 3 June 2026
Another British policing scandal 3 June 2026
General Debate 03 June 2026 3 June 2026
A win for democracy 3 June 2026
$600k on a website for a building! 2 June 2026
Set housing outcomes not outputs 2 June 2026
General Debate 02 June 2026 2 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour 2 June 2026
Which language should be used first? 1 June 2026

Recent Comments

Abolishing HR
Don Beckett
Meet the Greens – ACC
PaulL
Democrat says lock up the Jews
PaulL
Abolishing HR
David Garrett
Abolishing HR
Paulus
General Debate 04 June 2026
Paulus
General Debate 04 June 2026
Paulus
Abolishing HR
imalwaysright
Abolishing HR
Boy Geoff
Meet the Greens – ACC
Ghost
Meet the Greens – ACC
RoboRob
Abolishing HR
B A W
General Debate 04 June 2026
Phronesis
General Debate 04 June 2026
imalwaysright
General Debate 04 June 2026
SGA

Links

"The principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple."
Not PC
We Are a Country That Decided Housing Was The Economy
No Minister
My Opening Statement for the UATX Caplan-Jones Immigration Rematch
Utopia
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Open Mike 04/06/2026
The Standard
Playing with numbers.
Kiwipolitico
A lot of fuss about a simple Bill – its purpose (to make English an official language) is spelled out in 22 words
Point of Order
A crime
No Right Turn
Another non-tariff barrier
Offsetting Behaviour
Rugby Premiership Predictions for Round 18
Stats Chat
Budget 2026
NZCPR
UK Conversion Therapy Ban, Digital ID, Rallies, Elections
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d