The Politico/Economic Crisis in the U.S.

[Grim Reaper]

so let me get this straight, you offer up a birth certificate discussion in rebuttal to a financial meltdown discussion and **I** and being childish and offering strawmen? okaaayyyyyyyy

Nope. Didn't do that. At all. Stop with the childish strawman bullshit and argue with what I actually said.

But, staying on course, nothing of what I said is in the media or on peoples minds? Again I ask, did you NOT pay attention a certain tuesday last november?

There is no course to stay on when you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said.

[rubato]

"...
But the Republican Team believes that increasing marginal income tax rates (to get more from The Rich) is an exercise in futility because the people at the top of the heap, so to speak, are extremely tax-averse, and are mainly business owners who have the ability to manipulate their taxable incomes without significantly affecting their lavish lifestyles; indeed, history shows that at times when the top marginal tax rates have been much higher than today, the overall percentage of tax revenues paid by those at the top has been LESS than it is today. ...

Refuted by history. Republicans SAID this would happen when Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate but exactly the OPPOSITE occurred. The economy boomed, revenues went up, and the incomes of all 5 income groups went up by over 20%.

Republican ideology has been proven false repeatedly. So often that repeating a failed experiment is stupid.

And as for corporations, the Republican Team notes that the U.S. is already on the high side for corporate tax rates, and imposing even higher taxes on corporations would restrain exactly the kind of economic activity that we need. It would figuratively be a case of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
... "

This is a bare-faced lie. The effective corporate tax rate,the amount actually paid, for US companies is among the lowest of the other G20 countries. The STATUTORY rate is different.



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902 ... ateTax.pdf

Corporate tax as a % of GDP

United States ..................... 1.8
Unweighted Average .............. 3.4
Weighted Average ................. 2.5

Only Iceland and Germany are lower.

Please stop repeating things which have long since been proven false.

yrs,
rubato

[quaddriver]

so let me get this straight, you offer up a birth certificate discussion in rebuttal to a financial meltdown discussion and **I** and being childish and offering strawmen? okaaayyyyyyyy

Nope. Didn't do that. At all. Stop with the childish strawman bullshit and argue with what I actually said.

But, staying on course, nothing of what I said is in the media or on peoples minds? Again I ask, did you NOT pay attention a certain tuesday last november?

There is no course to stay on when you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said.

you said, what you said, and I replied as I did. I see the posts are atill on page one.

to recap: you clearly brought up the birthers. you clearly stated that if the birthers exist then surely someone would be complaining about the items I brought up. I clearly stated that such complaints were addressed last november. And the complaints and addressing thereof were quite pointed. hmm, was that the first or second largest landslide turnaround in us history?

Oddly, we note that those who did win last november did so on essentially fiscal policy issues, of which each item I brought up is a major component of.

so, aside from non sequitor discussions of birth certificates, exactly which - if any - of the hot button issues I enumerated are you in disagreement with?

[quaddriver]

Again. Republicans don't care even a tiny bit about balancing the budget. For all your ranting and raving about Democrats being so horrible, the Republicans are a much worse option.

Wanted to touch on this. For the fiscal year ending in september, we have for all intents and purposes appears to be a $1T defecit.

As of 7am today, the GOP wants about $61B in cuts. The Dems will give up about $33B in cuts. Weight this against a $1T defecit. What percentage is this? Granted, a $1T defecit is of proportions never before seen, and it was created ONLY by the democrats so if you please, I am going to ignore the second sentence quoted above as it is demonstrably false.

Now onto the cuts, numbers are one thing, line items are another. The GOP cuts go too deep into entitlement programs for idealogical reasons and the GOP is clearly wrong. the DEM cuts are too thin and preserve entitlements while endangering actual services we might need. they, are also wrong, albiet less so on the stop gap issue, but way more so on how the fecking thing got passed in the first place.

I would hope that people would GTFU and drop the 'much worse' talk, but I hope too much. Exsanguination vs strangulation have pretty much the same end result with not much difference in the discomfort felt.....

[dgs49]

http://kdwillis.files.wordpress.com/201 ... es_gdp.png

The chart on the linked page shows that higher marginal tax rates do not increase revenue for the Government. In fact, they reduce revenue because they hurt the economy and reduce GDP. The reality shown by this chart is that the Government cannot collect more than about 19% of GDP in income taxes no matter what it does.

In other words, the Dem's plan to raise the marginal tax rates to "soak the rich" will not, and cannot succeed. The Dem's know this, but want to do it anyway because it pleases their envious voter base. In fact, what higher rates accomplish is to send a lot of income underground, as wealthy investors and entrepreneurs adopt tax avoidance strategies to combat the higher rates. Remember, these people are the same people that politicians rely on to finance their political campaigns, so you can bet that a loophole will be created to satisfy every powerful constituency.

Rubato, in typical form, avers that I have told a "bare faced lie" when I pointed out the fact that U.S. corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world, then, as proof, he drags out statistics indicating that the actual tax contribution of corporations as a percentage of GDP is less in the U.S. than in other countries. Apparently he is too stupid to realize that he is proving my point. The high tax RATE forces corporations to employ extraordinary strategies to avoid reporting taxable income, thus the AMOUNT that is collected is not enhanced by the high rate of taxation. He has apparently not noticed the recent reporting of G.E.'s tax contribution for 2010.

The wiser course is to lower the rate and define taxable income more broadly, so that C-corps will use their energy and creativity to make money, rather than to avoid paying confiscatory taxes.

[Grim Reaper]

you said, what you said, and I replied as I did. I see the posts are atill on page one.

I said what I said and you replied to things I didn't say.

to recap: you clearly brought up the birthers.

And you brought up your super secret Democrat masters of the economy who crashed it to get a Democrat elected.

I clearly stated that such complaints were addressed last november.

You clearly stated circumstantial evidence. Democrats lost because Republicans have a better PR machine.

I would hope that people would GTFU and drop the 'much worse' talk, but I hope too much.

The Republicans focus almost all of their cuts on services needed by the non-rich. Meanwhile they talk about raising taxes on the poor to help support tax cuts on the rich. They aren't doing anything other than trying to score points with their buddies.

The wiser course is to lower the rate and define taxable income more broadly, so that C-corps will use their energy and creativity to make money, rather than to avoid paying confiscatory taxes.

The trickle down effect is pure garbage. All it does is put more money in the pockets of corporations. They posted their highest profits ever, yet unemployment still exists at a pretty high rate. Giving them more money doesn't mean more jobs unless we force them to hire people.

[quaddriver]

Democrats lost because Republicans have a better PR machine.
.

I must have missed that analysis.

If you are not going to argue from reality....then whats the point? seriously

[quaddriver]

[And you brought up your super secret Democrat masters of the economy who crashed it to get a Democrat elected.

nothing that has occured over the last 6 years is apparently all that super secret if we have been discussing it OPENLY in every mode available.

To whit, they did these things, they occured and we are where we and I ask yet again: exactly what good did those actions serve. You may pick any of the items in this thread to respond to.

Now granted, over the years we have heard from rube how much higher gas prices will benefit everyone, but Id like to see *just 1* person tackle the issue of getting the almost poor into homes and then pulling out the rug, or confiscating their checkign and savings accounts. two items soley attributable to the democrats and only the democrats.

Meanwhile they talk about raising taxes on the poor to help support tax cuts on the rich.

Id like to see something on this one. But I will simply let you tell me where to look to find it. No need you trying to post a link.

[Grim Reaper]

nothing that has occured over the last 6 years is apparently all that super secret if we have been discussing it OPENLY in every mode available.

Who's been discussing it openly? Your claims are the first I've ever heard of this.

To whit, they did these things, they occured and we are where we and I ask yet again: exactly what good did those actions serve. You may pick any of the items in this thread to respond to.

The actions would have had to exist before they could serve any purpose.

two items soley attributable to the democrats and only the democrats.

And as I said already, if there was even a tiny shred of truth to this, it would be trumpeted loudly from every news station over the past several years. It hasn't been trumpeted. It's not even a blip on FOX News.

Id like to see something on this one. But I will simply let you tell me where to look to find it. No need you trying to post a link.

Here you go. Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor and cut taxes on the rich. They aren't even trying to pretend to help the masses anymore.

[quaddriver]

nothing that has occured over the last 6 years is apparently all that super secret if we have been discussing it OPENLY in every mode available.

Who's been discussing it openly? Your claims are the first I've ever heard of this.

To whit, they did these things, they occured and we are where we and I ask yet again: exactly what good did those actions serve. You may pick any of the items in this thread to respond to.

The actions would have had to exist before they could serve any purpose.

two items soley attributable to the democrats and only the democrats.

And as I said already, if there was even a tiny shred of truth to this, it would be trumpeted loudly from every news station over the past several years. It hasn't been trumpeted. It's not even a blip on FOX News.

Id like to see something on this one. But I will simply let you tell me where to look to find it. No need you trying to post a link.

Here you go. Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor and cut taxes on the rich. They aren't even trying to pretend to help the masses anymore.

you actually didnt read that link did you?

I suspected.

Shall we assume such attention to detail comes with everything else you have said here?

[Grim Reaper]

you actually didnt read that link did you?

Less childishness please.

Or do you have a real explanation for how an increase in taxes for the poor and a decrease in taxes for the rich is something other than what it actually is?

[Long Run]

Isn't silly to try to blame one side or the other for the entire mess (or in good times, the entire grand result)? There are typically forces at work that overwhelm anything a politician can do.* Let's look at the history:

Reagan tax cuts and the extended economic boom that lasted (with a couple of minor interruptions) until the Great Recession. Of course, there were a lot of tax increases during his 8 years as well to try to reduce the deficit. No one argues for going back to 70% marginal tax rates and many other bad tax policies that had developed over the years, so the consensus is that the general reduction in marginal rates was a good thing (and now we argue about whether the top rate should be 35% or 40%). There were annual deficit problems that were reduced over the years due to the growing economy; not often noted was the great reduction in the enormous deficit in the Social Security budget. The greater force at work was the emergence of America as a leader in the information economy, and the dramatic gains in the abilities of computers to process information.

The Clinton balanced budget years. With Clinton in the White House and the Republicans in Congress, we achieved an annualized balanced budget -- this ignores the huge unfunded liabilities coming down the road but it is nice to have a balanced budget during good times. And that was the bigger force at work during the Clinton years -- good times. He came in with the economy recovering quickly from the minor recession of 1990-91, as well as enjoying the defense spending reduction from the end of the Cold War. There were no major challenges during the Clinton years and he did a good job managing things, though it would have been tough for anyone to screw things up given the larger forces driving things.

Bush tax cuts and renewed deficits. Bush undid the Clinton tax rate increases, and then the deficits grew. No doubt the cuts added to the deficit, but deficits were coming back because Bush inherited an economy that was heading into recession. So in actuality, the Bush tax cuts were actually timed pretty well and are the typical sort of policy economists of all stripes encourage when there is a recession. Then 9/11. Then Katrina. Then Iraq (Bush gets the credit for this since it no doubt has hurt our economy). Then the financial and real estate bubble (a bipartisan screwup: see asterisk). The point being, tax policy was a minor factor in driving the deficits, and was probably a minor factor in economic performance.

Which brings us to Obama. He inherited a mess. The wars, the bubble bursts and decimated housing market, super high unemployment rates, etc. There is no magic bullet to recovering from these things. It is fair criticism that he let the Democratic Congress turn the stimulus bill into a pork-fest, rather than rationally allocating those dollars for maximum benefit. The impact of healthcare reform has not been felt for good or bad on the budget yet. So, the trillion dollar baseline deficit is much more a result of overriding forces, as opposed to anything Obama has done or not done.

The real question is whether given the factors that government is faced with, what policies make sense. Looking to past history can help, but mindless comparisons to any past time period (usually an irrelevant time period) do not aid in that process.



*Not that politicians can't do a lot of damage in a short amount of time or over a long period of time or over.

[quaddriver]

you actually didnt read that link did you?

Less childishness please.

Or do you have a real explanation for how an increase in taxes for the poor and a decrease in taxes for the rich is something other than what it actually is?

Again, did you ACTUALLY read the link, have you seen ANY portion of Ryans proposal?

the 'tax on the poor' is essentially a VAT tax. If we want to redefine sales tax as being assaults on the poor then so be it, but please redfine the makers of my Jetta as being anti poor as well given that they could not afford it as well as a rich guy. That is why I asked if you even read it.

And oh, the other part, is the expiration of Obamas 'making work pay' credit which expires this year ANYWAYS. Pretty good trick, blaming the sunsetting of a democrat plan as a republican tax increase.

And Im not even going to start in on tax rates for business owners and the effect it might have on your job....since it is apparently misunderstood.

[quaddriver]

Finally, reason from long run


(not intended to mean long run is not unreasonable most of the time and this is a surprise, but rather, finally, another someone willing to look at the facts)

[Gob]

Washington teeters on the brink.
If there is no agreement on a budget by midnight on Friday, the federal government will shut down. While cops and soldiers, air traffic controllers and others deemed essential won't down tools this is serious, at least according to the Obama administration. A senior administration official has told us loans to small businesses and home buyers will stop, which will have an impact on an already fragile housing market. Military and civilian workers won't be paid. The lions at the zoo will be fed (and unlike last time their waste should be collected) but the gates won't open to visitors.

National parks will close. This is, of course, the most serious, as I am planning a vacation to one of them next week.

Continues here...

[quaddriver]

National parks will close. This is, of course, the most serious, as I am planning a vacation to one of them next week.

Starting next weekend I will be hosting the ACoE campground in the middle of nowhere...or not. It might be closed.

On the bright side, more time to split firewood, we still have snow up there.

[Grim Reaper]

the 'tax on the poor' is essentially a VAT tax.

You're splitting hairs to pretend you have an argument. It's still an increase in taxes.

And oh, the other part, is the expiration of Obamas 'making work pay' credit which expires this year ANYWAYS.

Right, because it's 100% impossible to extend tax cuts and we've never done that before in history.

And Im not even going to start in on tax rates for business owners and the effect it might have on your job....since it is apparently misunderstood.

That's because you can't. Decreasing taxes on businesses does not correlate with an increase in jobs.

[Gob]

Congressional negotiators say they have had "frank discussions" on a budget deal but no agreement has been reached as a government shutdown looms.

"There is no agreement on the number or policy issues," Republican House Speaker John Boehner said.

Top Senate Democrat Harry Reid said though he was "disappointed we haven't been able to get something done", talks would continue later on Thursday.

Without a deal parts of the government will shut down at midnight on Friday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13003059

[dgs49]

(a) "Lighthouse" Harry Reid will intentionally cause a shutdown, because he believes that the American voting public will blame it on the Republicans, and the Dems have basically nothing positive to sell the voters who are not brain dead. They need little things like this that can be articulated on a bumper sticker, even if they are phony or make no logical sense (e.g., "Bush lied; Americans died").

(b) Despite Lib's claims to the contrary, a Federal Government "shutdown" is little more than an inconvenience for 99% of Americans, and it's just an irritant to most. The most salient aspect of a "shutdown" is that hundreds of thousands of Federal government employees will get a paid furlough (i.e., vacation) of indefinite duration. A slightly humorous aspect of it is that we are assured the IRS will have people on board to cash our tax checks, but no one on board to issue refund checks. Know well that the bureaucrats involved - Democrats by a vast majority - will make things as difficult and painful as they can.

(c) The Dem's have NOTHING to compare with Rep. Ryan's blueprint for Federal fiscal responsibility, and their only strategy will be to mischaracterize any aspect of it that is amenable to mischaracterization (e.g., the "end of Medicare as we know it").

(d) As always, one can never expect Democrats to act as mature, cogent adults, in anything.

[Grim Reaper]

(d) As always, one can never expect Democrats to act as mature, cogent adults, in anything.

The Democrats accepted the Republicans' first budget proposal. The Republicans proceeded to act like little children throwing a tantrum.