return to tranceaddict TranceAddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 
6 months from the largest tax increases in history (pg. 7)
View this Thread in Original format
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
I sleep with an image of PrezBo sucking Nancy Pelosi's withering 70 year old clitwhile Harry Reid gives him a reach-around. I just watched him give a shout-out to Dennis Kucinich today. But if the rest of the left hates him more than I do....eesh!


I think you need to diversify your commentary consumption. The vitriol from most establishment liberals is pretty withering. Just read what they're saying about the new stimulus "infrastructure" bill he's peddling - it's full of all the pro-business stuff Republicans have been asking for, and the Left is calling him on it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ez...hite_house.html

quote:

The pro-business White House

I've spent a fair portion of the day going through President Obama's new proposals to help the sagging economy. There's the one to give businesses billions of dollars in tax breaks for research and development. There's the one to give businesses billions of dollars in tax breaks for equipment investment. There's the one to give small businesses a $30 billion lending fund, and also reverse a provision of the health-care reform bill that would've forced them to spend a lot of time on 1099 tax compliance. There's the one to spend $50 billion paying private companies to rebuild our infrastructure.

I got at this in Wonkbook today, but it's worth thinking harder about the idea -- propagated by many on the right and some in the business community -- that this president is somehow anti-business. The health-care reform bill bends over backward to preserve each and every private industry currently overcharging us for our care. The Obama campaign publicly supported the bank bailout and then repelled the populist measures to really hammer banker pay when they got into office. The financial reform bill didn't break up the banks, set leverage requirements in statute or do any of a number of other things that would've really hurt the financial industry. The auto bailout was designed to preserve the existence of America's auto industry, and even the Economist has admitted that the Obama administration did everything in its power to "restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible." The various stimulus measures have been designed to directly support businesses or indirectly support the people who those businesses rely on.

The point isn't that all of these policies were good. Some of them weren't. The point is that the constant accusation that this White House is somehow anti-business, or deaf to the corporate community's concerns, is a fiction of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. There's a good argument to be made, I think, that this White House is too focused on business, but it's annoying to have to frame it as a boldly counterintuitive point, rather than as an obvious conclusion based on their raft of policy initiatives meant to save, help or otherwise improve the position of corporate America.
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
No, he's just woefully unqualified to manage, let alone lead. And he panders to the worst of the left.


Really? And that's because he isn't pandering to failed right wing policies? Like I said, expecting full employment within such a short time of the second biggest financial crisis in 100 years, is delusional no matter if the president is Republican, Democrat, or Fascist.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
95% of Americans.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...lus-made-it-so/


Those who live solely in the world of academia will never understand. How can you fall for such a silly shell game like that? $400-$800 checks "for 95% working families" counts as being a tax cutting fiscal hawk? What does that come out to... about $50/month? I don't even know a single person who has received such a benefit. And giving checks to the 46% who don't pay income taxes is welfare, not a tax break. Meanwhile, about 75-100 million Americans with a 401K and/or money in the stock market are about to see the capital gains tax more than double- therefore will be hit with new taxes. That's just 1 example.

What most of you academics also don't understand is this: about 85% of small businesses are registered as "Sub Chapter S Corps".... I am one of them. That could be 1 employee or up to 500. (Full disclosure, I have been on the academic side as well). When it comes time to do yearly taxes, whatever money is in the bank gets filed on owners' personal tax returns; I say again- we have to file our business reportings on our personal income tax return. For a business to show $250,000 in profit sitting in the bank (that seems to be the magical number that Obama classifies as being rich)... that is nothing. Even with just a few employees on marginal salaries, you need a few months of payroll + overhead + operating costs sitting there just to break even. So all those shop owners, store owners, small product or service company owners... millions of people!... who are barely able to make payroll can show $250,000 in corporate assets or profit, and get taxed on their personal returns as though they are part of "the rich." These are the little details that career politicians and academics will never understand, and it shows right now- we have the most inexperienced (business wise) administration in history right now... nobody with private sector experience. Is that not important? Is it really any surprise that the economy is in tatters? If the objective were truly to grow business, none of the current policies would be enacted. There is no substitute for real world experience.

Let's not gloss over the real problem. It's simply unbelievable that after two years of world record deficits from unchecked spending, Obama has not proposed a single idea that would reduce the size/scope of our massively expanding government.

quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Really? And that's because he isn't pandering to failed right wing policies?


No, it's because he has people with zero real world business experience dictating how the economy should be run.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I think you need to diversify your commentary consumption. The vitriol from most establishment liberals is pretty withering. Just read what they're saying about the new stimulus "infrastructure" bill he's peddling - it's full of all the pro-business stuff Republicans have been asking for, and the Left is calling him on it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ez...hite_house.html


Ezra Klein... seriously?

That new $50 billion "stimulus" he's pedaling isn't at all pro-business. It would support labor unions (for temporary jobs no less)! Jesus, he was pitching that speech in front of a labor union. We'd have to borrow that money, which would raise the deficit and interest payments even higher. Why not use unspent money from the first $846 billion "stimulus" (the real reason GOP opposes it)? And wasn't that one supposed to be the answer to "infrastructure", chalk full of jobs for roads/highways/bridges? What is this nonsense!? Like people are sitting around waiting to erect a new business, and just need some roads build into the landscape to access the space?

:stongue:
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Those who live solely in the world of academia will never understand.


Because it follows according to your logic that no one in the academia world have ever lived in the business, "real" world?

quote:
How can you fall for such a silly shell game like that?


Umm, because every nonpartisan group that has examined the data agrees that a healthy amount of revenue would be gained on the top 2% if they actually paid a little more on taxes?

quote:
$400-$800 checks "for 95% working families" counts as being a tax cutting fiscal hawk? What does that come out to... about $50/month? I don't even know a single person who has received such a benefit.


I seem to remember another stimulus plan given by a previous administration, touting such things and getting a whopping $300 check in the mail. Agreed that it didn't help much, but something was better than nothing, even back then. What's important this time around is to offset that with an increase in revenue brought in by tax returns moving back to previous levels (to which was the original point of Republicans touting a 10-yr tax break to expire) on the top 2% of individuals, which history has demonstrated time and again do not help boost the economy near as much as the actual middle class.

quote:
And giving checks to the 46% who don't pay income taxes is welfare, not a tax break.


Kinda like those billions of dollars Bush and the Republicans gave to the oil industries and other businesses, especially considering how ridiculous so many of those top tier businesses seemingly skip out on their taxes as it is:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/...odgers-cost-you

quote:
Meanwhile, about 75-100 million Americans with a 401K and/or money in the stock market are about to see the capital gains tax more than double- therefore will be hit with new taxes. That's just 1 example.


Not sure how the your numbers break down, but Obama does favor capping capital gains at 20%, which would be a 5% increase. But also keep in mind whom exactly this plan to let the tax cuts expire (a proposal to let expire by those Republicans who created the cuts in the first place, mind you) would truly effect:

quote:
President Barack Obama’s plan to let Bush-era tax cuts for the highest-income Americans expire would have limited effect on 76 percent of those taxpayers, a study says.

Under the Democrats’ plan to end a tax break for those earning more than $200,000 per individual or $250,000 per couple, the 3.8 million filers who fall in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range would pay $2 billion more in 2011 taxes, or an average of $532, according to a July 30 letter from the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

The study conducted for the House Ways and Means Committee shows that those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 would account for 5 percent of the planned $38 billion tax increase. The biggest burden would fall on the 608,000 taxpayers who make between $500,000 and $1 million and the 315,000 who earn more than $1 million; the first group would pay $6.5 billion more, or an average of almost $10,000, and the second group would owe $31 billion more, or almost $100,000 on average, the analysis said.

For those who earn less than $500,000, the tax increase is “relatively low,” said Roberton Williams, an economist with the Urban Institute in Washington who studied the report. “It’s less than 1 percent.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ocrat-plan.html


Cry me a ing river.

quote:
What most of you academics also don't understand is this: about 85% of small businesses are registered as "Sub Chapter S Corps".... I am one of them. That could be 1 employee or up to 500. (Full disclosure, I have been on the academic side as well). When it comes time to do yearly taxes, whatever money is in the bank gets filed on owners' personal tax returns; I say again- we have to file our business reportings on our personal income tax return. For a business to show $250,000 in profit sitting in the bank (that seems to be the magical number that Obama classifies as being rich)... that is nothing. Even with just a few employees on marginal salaries, you need a few months of payroll + overhead + operating costs sitting there just to break even. So all those shop owners, store owners, small product or service company owners... millions of people!... who are barely able to make payroll can show $250,000 in corporate assets or profit, and get taxed on their personal returns as though they are part of "the rich." These are the little details that career politicians and academics will never understand, and it shows right now- we have the most inexperienced (business wise) administration in history right now... nobody with private sector experience. Is that not important? Is it really any surprise that the economy is in tatters? If the objective were truly to grow business, none of the current policies would be enacted. There is no substitute for real world experience.


Again, not exactly sure where you get your numbers. One of the reasons why S-corporations like yours may be getting taxed just as equally is because of the broader definition of the term "small business" and how larger corporations are taking advantage of that:

quote:
Those who claim that raising the top rates would seriously harm small businesses also tend to rely on an extremely broad definition of “small business.” Because the IRS does not publish specific, satisfactory data on the taxes that small businesses pay, analysts are left to examine various sources of business income that individuals receive. Some analysts define any taxpayer who shows any business income on a tax return — including passive income that very wealthy investors secure — as a small business. Defining small businesses in this manner greatly overstates the actual number of small businesses, particularly among households with very high incomes.[6]

For example, most Americans would not describe the nation’s wealthiest 400 individuals, some of whom are billionaires, as small businesses. Yet the “Top 400” individuals have a great deal of money to invest and consequently receive significant business income — which means that they qualify as “small business owners” under the broad definition of the term. The 400 highest-earning taxpayers received nearly $17 billion in S corporation and partnership income in 2007 (the most recent year for which we have these data) — an average of $83 million each, according to the IRS. [7] In addition to the wealthiest 400 taxpayers, the following types of individuals are commonly included in the definition of “small business” used in tax debates:

* partners in very large corporate law firms,
* partners in lucrative medical practices, and
* Wall Street bond traders who receive multi-million dollar bonuses and invest some of their income in investment partnerships.

The commonly used definition of “small business” also includes many wealthy executives of the nation’s largest corporations and financial institutions, who are considered “small business owners” if they rent out their vacation homes.[8]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3251


Furthermore:

quote:
Only 34 percent of those making between $200-500,000 report making income from partnerships or S corporation, while 60.4 percent of those between $500,000 and $1 million, 78.4 percent of those making between $2-5 million, and 89.2 percent of those making over $10 million do. Given that the vast majority of high income filers–79.4 percent– make between $200-500,000, this suggests that the filers reporting small business income who would be affected by letting the tax cuts expire come disproportionately from the ranks of the super-rich.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ez...uch_do_the.html


The average income of those being effected by letting these taxes expire is $800,000:

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg814.htm

Again, cry me a ing river.

quote:
Let's not gloss over the real problem.


No, let's create one that in all reality doesn't truly exist.....

quote:
It's simply unbelievable that after two years of world record deficits from unchecked spending, Obama has not proposed a single idea that would reduce the size/scope of our massively expanding government.


What's more unbelievable is your ineptitude to understanding why he had to initially spend money to attempt getting us out of this hole created by conservative policies in the first place, let alone all those voices such as yours crying out in misery as Bush ran up the deficits with endless wars that didn't even go on his Annual budget plans and tax cuts that ran us in the red as far as our eyes can see.


quote:
No, it's because he has people with zero real world business experience dictating how the economy should be run.


Yeah, having a conservative economist running our country would be a real ing hoot instead. I'll be sure to vote for the Koch brothers next time either one runs for POTUS......:rolleyes:
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
No, let's create one that in all reality doesn't truly exist.....

:stongue:

You're right dude- the economic pie isn't a zero sum game, and a 25-30% increase in government expansion the past 19 months that's wholly funded by the private sector (AND government funded workers now make DOUBLE the average of private sector workers including benefits), while the private sector simultaneously sheds 7 million jobs is a totally nonsensical creation of my own warped reality that has no effect on the current state of affairs. Yes I have officially gone off the reservation. :rolleyes:


quote:
What's more unbelievable is your ineptitude to understanding why he had to initially spend money to attempt getting us out of this hole created by conservative policies in the first place, let alone all those voices such as yours crying out in misery as Bush ran up the deficits with endless wars that didn't even go on his Annual budget plans and tax cuts that ran us in the red as far as our eyes can see.


Conservative policies, by definition, are not wildly spending. Stop pretending the Democrats haven't been in control of Congress since 2006. Stop pretending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't run into the ground by ing Democrats, and that their bull forced "affordable housing" policies don't hold significant blame. BTW- our president has now run up more debt than all presidents before him to Clinton COMBINED. Bush's fault though I suppose.

I understand the initial attempt at spending money, but when it falls flat in practice why would you double down on the same policy and spend us into ing oblivion? It sounds like you're a Keynesian Paul Krugman mark like Jeff... when are you people going to learn that isn't a solution? Krugman's NYT article in 2002 endorsed the creation of a housing bubble for 's sake! Kruggy:

quote:
The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/o...20bubble&st=cse

His solution then, like now, to all problems is to create more bubbles, more spending, and more deficits. The tech bubble bursts... so lets create a housing bubble. Now he (and people like you who don't understand economics) favor more spending as the answer? How much... how much is enough, a zillion dollars? Just like the housing bubble Krugman et. al. suggested that brought about the current recession/depression, that line of thinking will compound into more horrible results... as we are seeing right ing now.



quote:
Yeah, having a conservative economist running our country would be a real ing hoot instead. I'll be sure to vote for the Koch brothers next time either one runs for POTUS......:rolleyes:


Look around the country man. Look at all the liberal and/or Democrat run cities and states. Califorina, Michigan, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, etc... all are in horrible shape, up to their eyeballs in debt, unemployment, unfunded liabilities, and verging on insolvency... WAY ahead of states run by more conservative people. LOL talk about "cry me a river"... stop blaming Bush like a . Here is a fantastic article from today showing how misguided you are on your stupid claims.

quote:
.... For now, I return to 2007. While George W. Bush was president for eight years, there were only four years in which both Houses of Congress were also Republican: 2003 through 2006. Congress writes budgets one year ahead, so those Congresses wrote the budgets for fiscal years 2004 through 2007. (You might think the Republicans also had Congress in 2001 and 2002. They didn't. Jumpin' Jim Jeffords made sure of that.)

Take a look at what those darned Republicans did when they wrote budgets.

Sources: OMB (see Table 1.2) and CBO. (WOT is War on Terror.) The fifty-year averages are for the fifty years prior to 2007, or 1957 through 2006.

Why are those averages meaningful? Because they had been holding for the past half-century. For the fifty years prior to 2007, revenues averaged 18.0% of GDP, and outlays averaged 20.1%. Moreover, the revenue extremes were 16.1% and 20.6% of GDP, and the outlay extremes were 17.0% and 23.5%. We had had half a century of fairly stable budgets (believe it or not) as fractions of GDP.

(For the statistically inclined, the linear regression estimates of revenue and outlays for 2007, based on the previous fifty years, are 18.4% and 21.1% of GDP. The actual values were 18.5% and 19.6%.)

Spending. Did Republicans spend like crazy? No. Every year was at or below the fifty-year average. Also, there was no upward trend at all. In fact, spending went down that last year.

Tax Cuts. Did the Bush tax cuts, which became effective in 2001 and 2003, decimate revenues? No. In fact, revenues grew every fiscal year that a Republican Congress wrote budgets. The trend was, in fact, positive and led to above-average revenue levels in 2006 and 2007.

Deficits. Deficits declined in each of those four years. By 2007, the deficit was 1.2% of GDP, a below-average number. In fact, were it not for the War on Terror (costing $171B that year), 2007 would have been in surplus!

Debt. What about the debt (OMB, Table 7.1)? It barely budged, and it actually edged downward a bit. The federal debt held by the public was 36.8% of GDP in 2004 and 36.2% in 2007. The previous fifty-year average was 37.0%. The debt was below that for all four years of 2004-07. As with most other measures of budgeting, the levels were to the good side of average and trending in a better direction while Republicans wrote budgets.

The FY2007 budget was about as white-bread average as it gets, and even a tad to the good side. Not only were the numbers themselves close to average, but the trends were fairly level and, if anything, showed positive signs: rising revenues, falling spending, falling deficits, and falling debt.

So much for the federal budget. What about the economy itself?

Unemployment. Over the months corresponding to those fiscal years, 2004-07, the unemployment rate averaged 5.0% and hit a low of 4.4% in March of 2007. Even though FY2007 corresponded to a budget written by Republicans, the new Democrat-controlled Congress increased the minimum wage in May 2007. By that September, unemployment crept up to 4.7% and would go above 5.0% by the end of calendar 2007. We have not seen anything that low since, "despite" two more minimum-wage increases.

Jobs. At the end of FY2007 (September), the economy was producing 137,667,000 jobs. Four years before (September 2003), there were only 129,925,000. That is, over 7.7 million jobs were added in those four all-GOP years. We now stand at 130,311,000 jobs -- a loss of 7.4 million jobs since Republicans lost Congress.

Gross Domestic Product. Real GDP grew at an annual rate of 2.7% over those four fiscal years. In FY2007, it grew 2.3%. While these are not superlative numbers, they match the standard conservative estimate of 2.5% growth for a nominal year. Over those four years, the rate was between 2.2% and 3.1% for any one year, indicating both strength and stability. Economic growth was what one would call "sustainable."

The Stock Market. The last day of FY2003, the S&P 500 would close at 996. Four years later, it would close at 1527. It reached its all-time high in October 2007: 1576. That is more than a 50% gain in those four years. Since then, it has lost over 30%, standing barely above its close in FY2003.

Putting It Together. If we send ourselves back to the end of 2007, forgetting what we know about what came after, it had all the features of an ideal year: responsible budgeting, manageable debt, and good, solid economic growth. All budget and economic numbers were about average or to the good side of average, and generally trending in positive directions.

The Bush tax cuts did not hurt revenue. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars had relatively minor impact on the budgets. All the things normally blamed on Bush were simply not in play.

And no matter how much you want to blame Bush for what happened after 2007, you cannot moan about "the last eight years" or "the last decade." Up through 2007, or through seven of Bush's eight years, things were just fine.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010...d_old_days.html

liberalism in panic is an ugly sight indeed.
pkcRAISTLIN
Lol, nowhere near as ugly as bush (economic) apologists. I look forward to opus tearing you another new arsehole. *gets popcorn*
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Lol, nowhere near as ugly as bush (economic) apologists. I look forward to opus tearing you another new arsehole. *gets popcorn*


I'm not being a "Bush apologist"... the facts are what they are. We had nonstop economic GDP growth, around 5.5% unemployment throughout his term, and the deficit was reduced 60% from 2003-2007 following his tax cuts. Facts. Then, begin the Democrat takeover of all things financial, and boom.

That being said, I was NOT a fan of Bush's increased spending or government growth. Not at all- that's where he lost me. But those are the kinds of things Opus is bashing "Conservatives" and Bush for doing, saying "that's how we got here." Well if that's the case, how can one turn around and endorse the exact same type of spending being done now by factors of 10?? What- all of a sudden it's a good idea because Democrats are in charge? Like I said, we are being run by a gaggle of career politicians and academic theorists who have never run a company, met a payroll, or been accountable for a single thing they "believe" works. Zero real world business experience by the decision makers obviously shows. What's so difficult in admitting that?

Opus can throw statistics and all the steamy rhetoric at me he wants, as he tries to find clever ways to rebut every single sentence I type. But look around in the real world- there is nothing pro-business or pro-growth going on; our economy is ing dying and more spending is not the way out. Even hardcore Obama supporters from the business community like Mort Zuckerman are now saying Obama runs "the most fiscally irresponsible government in U.S. history."

ing look at the differences and tell me it's Bush's fault!!!

pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
I'm not being a "Bush apologist"... the facts are what they are. We had nonstop economic GDP growth, around 5.5% unemployment throughout his term, and the deficit was reduced 60% from 2003-2007 following his tax cuts. Facts. Then, begin the Democrat takeover of all things financial, and boom.


This argument that the deficit was reduced DUE to tax cuts is pure fantasy, that is only spouted by the far right. I have never seen that claim made by ANYONE who wasn’t a partisan hack. Indeed, the previous Bush tax cuts (George senior) ended up costing him the white house because he had to raise taxes again because of cuts’ impact on a growing deficit. I am willing to be proven wrong if someone honest like opus can show me how exactly cutting taxes reduced the deficit. Sorry, your rightwing nonsense doesn’t cut it.

I have already pointed out to you, hell it was only a few days ago, that a major contributor to relative prosperity during bush’s term was a ing property bubble. How’d that work out for you again?

quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
That being said, I was NOT a fan of Bush's increased spending or government growth. Not at all- that's where he lost me. But those are the kinds of things Opus is bashing "Conservatives" and Bush for doing, saying "that's how we got here." Well if that's the case, how can one turn around and endorse the exact same type of spending being done now by factors of 10?? What- all of a sudden it's a good idea because Democrats are in charge?


That’s the problem with you guys, its all partisan nonsense. Watching American politics go by reminds me of football teams and their fans. No logic, all team support.

bush’s spending for war is hardly comparable to attempts to soften a huge economic collapse. The fact you even try and compare the two boggles my mind. Its not ‘ok because the dems are in charge’ its relatively ok because the situation is completely ing different.

quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Opus can throw statistics and all the steamy rhetoric at me he wants, as he tries to find clever ways to rebut every single sentence I type. But look around in the real world- there is nothing pro-business or pro-growth going on; our economy is ing dying and more spending is not the way out. Even hardcore Obama supporters from the business community like Mort Zuckerman are now saying Obama runs "the most fiscally irresponsible government in U.S. history."


Opus doesn’t need to be clever to rebut your sentences.

quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
ing look at the differences and tell me it's Bush's fault!!!



Yeah, an equally partisan friend of mine tried this graph on for size the other day. nice try.

Firstly, 2008 was TARP, under BUSH. Colouring it blue is nonsense. (2000 surplus is also clinton’s)
Secondly, bush didn’t include the spending on two ing wars in the budget, so that graph isn’t representative of his actual spending (correct me if im wrong Opus).
Thirdly, laws that contribute to the deficit, such as the Medicaid prescription bill, will have an impact FOREVER. yet people like you will ignore that as long as your graph is coloured in blue. Give me a ing break. And that’s ignoring the continuing costs of the two wars, but we’ll just chalk that up in the blue column!
Finally, a huge contributor to current deficits is your economic hole, with massive unemployment. =less tax revenue. But yeah, the economic collapse is obama’s fault, right?

I really like you kev and I think you’re a bright guy, and I wanted tips on running a business I’d come to you for help. But as far as politics goes, your views rarely intersect with reality.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:

Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years. Legislation enacted since 2001 added about $3.0 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2007, with nearly half of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending). Yet the President and some Congressional leaders decline to acknowledge the tax cuts’ role in the nation’s budget problems, falling back instead on the discredited nostrum that tax cuts “pay for themselves.”


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692



quote:

Myth 1: Tax cuts “pay for themselves.”
“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.” — Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006

Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.
Proponents of tax cuts often claim that “dynamic scoring” — that is, considering tax cuts’ economic effects when calculating their costs — would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero. The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts.

But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record. In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off. The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut. Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm)

Some argue that, even if most tax cuts do not pay for themselves, capital gains tax cuts do. But, in reality, capital gains tax cuts cost money as well. After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.” That’s why CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the White House Office of Management and Budget all project that making the 2003 capital gains tax cut permanent would cost about $100 billion over the next ten years. (http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm)


Ibid.

MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss You're right dude- the economic pie isn't a zero sum game, and a 25-30% increase in government expansion the past 19 months that's wholly funded by the private sector (AND government funded workers now make DOUBLE the average of private sector workers including benefits), while the private sector simultaneously sheds 7 million jobs is a totally nonsensical creation of my own warped reality that has no effect on the current state of affairs.


Straw man. What does that have to do with the supposed “devastation” that you are purporting in this thread about how the world will come crashing down once the top 2% have to resort back to paying taxes back to pre-Bush levels?

Furthermore, I too read similar reports in the papers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/b...nings.html?_r=1

For the private sector to appease their stockholder Gods by maintaining a job freeze for surging profits, thereby asking each worker to work harder and longer, to me they are partially a victim of their own circumstances. Combined with the complete lack of bargaining power from workers who’s unions are becoming more and more crippled each year, the private sector will continue to squeeze their workers for every ounce of sweat they’ve got.

In any case, yes it is truly difficult to see how bad this economy has been. You think you’re the only businessman who’s had it tough? For me in the physical therapy circles, recent reports have demonstrated people seeing the doctors up to 2/3 of the time less than they normally would. And considering doctors are our #1 referral source, our small business is hurting as well. But that’s life, and we deal with it the best we can. We also keep in mind where this mess actually came from, and I often think of graphs like this to help me remember:



Inheriting the worst recession since the Great Depression, and then climbing out of it successfully in 1 ½ years would be a daunting task for any president. I shudder to think how ing worse off we would have been under McCain/Palin. Yeah, more tax cuts for the affluent and going all-in on more trickle-down economics would have been just swell.

quote:
Yes I have officially gone off the reservation.

Congrats, you’ve taken the first step into admitting you have a problem……

quote:
Conservative policies, by definition, are not wildly spending.


Which, of course, you’ll then next try to depart yourself from the last 3 Republican Presidents, especially Bush II and Reagan who both ran up deficit spending far greater than any dirty hippie librul. Or you could be silent and pretend they did nothing of the sort despite their wonderful tax cutting policies.

Or you could just resort to lecturing us all on that wonderful conservative/libertarian philosophy of our government spending on absolutely nothing, cutting taxes to oblivion, letting all businesses govern themselves, privatizing everything around us including air, while jacking off to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and riding bareback, buck-naked on unicorns while eating bottomless cones of ice cream. Because that philosophy has held such great water historically……
But then again, since we’re going to attempt to break stereotypes, I would state that liberal policies don’t necessarily entail that either. Not that I think you’d believe anything I say, but oh well.
quote:
Stop pretending the Democrats haven't been in control of Congress since 2006.


Who’s pretending? You’re talking about a group of hapless, spineless turds who lead my party and have no backbone on anything. Mr. “I need 60 votes” Senate Majority leader Reid didn’t do in regards to Democratic policies for 2 years, much of course was on his own accord, but getting past Bush’s veto was impossible. And even now he’s still spineless and watered down so many bills in efforts to “compromise” with the extremist turds in your party, which he ends up usually getting stifled and filibustered by procedures by the obstructionist GOP anyway.

Besides, the policies that ultimately led up to our recession were well in place BEFORE 2006, not to mention the housing crash was beginning to be seen in 2006 anyway. And barring some strange freaking miracle, there’s very little any Congress could have done before things began turning South.

quote:
Stop pretending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't run into the ground by ing Democrats, and that their bull forced "affordable housing" policies don't hold significant blame.

Didn’t know I was pretending that either. Some of the blame they share, yes. However we both know they were actually getting out of the market during the housing bubble high times, and it’s been demonstrated time and again that the vast majority of loans during that time came from the private sector. As your favorite buddy Krugman points out:

quote:
The housing bubble reached its point of maximum inflation in the middle years of the naughties.
During those same years, Fannie and Freddie were sidelined by Congressional pressure, and saw a sharp drop in their share of securitization:

while securitization by private players surged

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-chicago-knows/


There’s fun graphs in there that demonstrate his point.

quote:
BTW- our president has now run up more debt than all presidents before him to Clinton COMBINED. Bush's fault though I suppose.


What got us here, and what Obama has attempted to do so far to get us out of this mess is largely because of Bush and Conservative policies since Reagan, yes:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

quote:
I understand the initial attempt at spending money, but when it falls flat in practice why would you double down on the same policy and spend us into ing oblivion? It sounds like you're a Keynesian Paul Krugman mark like Jeff... when are you people going to learn that isn't a solution?

When history finally bears it out that trickle-down economics and self-regulation helps everyone and puts us all into financial bliss. Besides, it’s well-known by now that the stimulus package you hate so much helped avoid a second Depression. And without it, GDP would have been approx. 2% lower, while 2.7 million jobs would have been lost altogether:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/b.../28bailout.html

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...us/?ref=economy

quote:
Krugman's NYT article in 2002 endorsed the creation of a housing bubble for 's sake! Kruggy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/o...20bubble&st=cse

His solution then, like now, to all problems is to create more bubbles, more spending, and more deficits. The tech bubble bursts... so lets create a housing bubble. Now he (and people like you who don't understand economics) favor more spending as the answer? How much... how much is enough, a zillion dollars? Just like the housing bubble Krugman et. al. suggested that brought about the current recession/depression, that line of thinking will compound into more horrible results... as we are seeing right ing now.


Since I don’t debate you much anymore, I often forgot just how ing willfully stupid you can be. Jesus Christ, yeah, Krugman wanted a housing bubble. While you’re at it, be sure to take Steven Cobert at his word. Jesus, he was criticizing Bush’s tax cuts for the affluent, dumbass. Here, let’s read what he wrote at the end of his column together:

quote:
Bear in mind also that government officials have a stake in accentuating the positive. The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.

But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up. And while I like movies with happy endings as much as the next guy, a movie isn't realistic unless the story line makes sense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/o...double-dip.html


Yeah, sounds like he was reeeally serious on wanting to create a housing bubble. It wasn’t a suggestion on policy as you and your conservative blogs want so desperately to believe. He was describing the situation with a tongue-in-cheek solution. But Christ, let a little sarcasm flow right over your heads.

quote:
Look around the country man. Look at all the liberal and/or Democrat run cities and states. Califorina, Michigan, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, etc... all are in horrible shape, up to their eyeballs in debt, unemployment, unfunded liabilities, and verging on insolvency... WAY ahead of states run by more conservative people. LOL talk about "cry me a river"...


I think you know as well as I do that this argument on State deficits is just a wee bit more complicated than merely dividing two sides and shedding more blame on one side versus the other. But you’re welcome to try and indulge us more to demonstrate this point, if you so desire.

quote:
stop blaming Bush like a .


Yes, an appeal to my masculinity will surely win me over, champ.

quote:
Here is a fantastic article from today showing how misguided you are on your stupid claims.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010...d_old_days.html

liberalism in panic is an ugly sight indeed.


If any librul is panicking, then they are new to politics and need to grow a pair. Times and party changes ebb and flow. People aren’t happy and they want changes. I’d contend that American people as a whole are downright ing stupid and reactionary, but I digress. In any case, since you give me pieces from Conservative bloggers and mags, I thought I’d share with you some of mine:

quote:
In only eight of Bush's 96 months did the economy create as many jobs as the 290,000 it did last month. Clinton exceeded that level 33 times. Reagan exceeded it 24. In all, the economy gained about 1.2 million jobs annually during the six years of recovery under Bush. It averaged about twice that during the expansion from March 1991 to February 2001.

This record suggests two conclusions. One is that there's no evidence to support the argument from congressional Republicans that tax cuts offer a silver bullet for expanding employment. Job growth boomed after Reagan cut taxes, but expanded even faster after Clinton raised them, and then faltered despite two massive tax cuts under Bush. If tax rates are the critical factor in that record, the relationship is well disguised.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njma...100515_5237.php


And this picture is just plain fun:



More here:
quote:
Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections.
Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [6] (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1).

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.[7]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036


CBPP was basing their arguments against a Heritage paper back in June. I love hearing you guys lament so hard about the days of old under Bush.

And by the way, anyone else find it ing hilarious how Kevin is wailing and moaning now about deficits, while seemingly wanting more tax cuts for the top 2% that ultimately adds some $800 billion more to the deficit? Cute, ain’t it?

And I also noticed how you seemed to handwave away the majority of my counterpoints to your arguments above. Again, I’m pretty sure we were talking about how the earth was going to end when we end the Bush tax cuts. Care to revisit that topic once again, Kevin?
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Indeed, the previous Bush tax cuts (George senior) ended up costing him the white house because he had to raise taxes again because of cuts’ impact on a growing deficit. I am willing to be proven wrong if someone honest like opus can show me how exactly cutting taxes reduced the deficit. Sorry, your rightwing nonsense doesn’t cut it.


I'd show you if I could, but every point of data I've seen demonstrates exactly the opposite.



quote:
(correct me if im wrong Opus).


Nope, you're correct.
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 
Privacy Statement