PDA

View Full Version : Taxes


oldandslow
03-13-2008, 07:50 AM
Patteeu wrote this in another thread on why 'bama is the devil...

Issue 4: Taxes.

Obama wants to raise them. But he doesn't want to raise them on everyone. He just wants to raise them anywhere that higher taxes might have a negative impact on our economy.

In my last post, I pointed out his plan to tax company's overseas operations in order to bribe companies at home to increase their overhead costs.

He also wants to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends as well as raising rates on the wealthy, i.e. people who are more likely to invest their money in the US economy than use it for consumption. By lowering the after tax return on investment, Obama policies will discourage both domestic and foreign investment in the US.
_______________


So tell me how Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have REALLY bolstered the economy...

At the present moment we are entering recession. Oil is at 110.00 a barrel. Unemployment is up. Consumer buying is down. We have a banking crisis and a housing bubble crisis.

Hoover
03-13-2008, 07:55 AM
If you want to see an economy fall flat fast elect Hillary or Obama.

The Bush tax cuts saved our ass after 9-11 and have kept our economy strong even through an unpopular war. Now you are sighting the current status of the economy, what about the last 7 years?

I personally think things are bad because Wall Street thinks a Dem is going to get elected and not extend the Bush tax cuts bringing a huge tax increase to Americans. A family of 4 making 40k a year will pay 1800 more in taxes.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 08:01 AM
Isn't this about the same type of right wing wailing that greeting the Clinton taxes which led to reduced deficits and a booming economy for many years.

The Bush tax cuts were never primarily designed as economy boosters, which is my main complaint iwth them. They were designed to fix what right-wingers viewed as systemic complaints they had with the tax code.

tiptap
03-13-2008, 08:02 AM
The stock market hasn't moved in 7 years. The employment rate is starting to tank. Part of an investment environment from foreign investors would be a confidence in the leaders and in their policy. The amount of liquidity in the bond and stock market has had to boosted by the Federal Reserve with the consequence of pressure for inflation on the dollar. The most recent polls show that 43% of the population say they are worst off than 4 years ago. The federal dept is rising putting even more strain on the bond markets. It's the economy stupid. But will the present administration do the right thing that Bush I did and raise taxes?

Brock
03-13-2008, 08:03 AM
In other words, "he wants to tax everyone who has a pot to piss in, and the rest of you have no money to take anyway".

Cochise
03-13-2008, 08:04 AM
So tell me how Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have REALLY bolstered the economy...

At the present moment we are entering recession. Oil is at 110.00 a barrel. Unemployment is up. Consumer buying is down. We have a banking crisis and a housing bubble crisis.

I drank orange juice this morning, and then it rained. Orange juice causes rain.

Brock
03-13-2008, 08:04 AM
The stock market hasn't moved in 7 years. The employment rate is starting to tank. Part of an investment environment from foreign investors would be a confidence in the leaders and in their policy. The amount of liquidity in the bond and stock market has had to boosted by the Federal Reserve with the consequence of pressure for inflation on the dollar. The most recent polls show that 43% of the population say they are worst off than 4 years ago. The federal dept is rising putting even more strain on the bond markets. It's the economy stupid. But will the present administration do the right thing that Bush I did and raise taxes?

People like you make me a lot of money, so keep doing what you're doing.

Iowanian
03-13-2008, 08:08 AM
Maybe you could elaborate on his desire to raise social security taxes...which will ding individuals and any LLC, hurting small business and individuals.

"Yeah! We raised the minimum wage" "lets increase the SS tax and put more people on the bubble, under the line of self sustainment and continue the cycle!"


Wordswordswordswords <> substance.


I've made a life choice that has made things tougher lately, but we're by no means wealthy, the definition of working class, and by living with some basic fiscal responsibility, we're much better off now than even 4 years ago. I think most people that aren't, need to look in their garage and see how many dollars go to car payments, see how long its going to take them to pay off the furniture and bigscreen they can't really afford, and how much stupid money the've spent on CCs doing things they really weren't in a good place to spend.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 08:09 AM
People like you make me a lot of money, so keep doing what you're doing.


Posting on message boards....?

chiefforlife
03-13-2008, 08:11 AM
If you want to see an economy fall flat fast elect Hillary or Obama.

The Bush tax cuts saved our ass after 9-11 and have kept our economy strong even through an unpopular war. Now you are sighting the current status of the economy, what about the last 7 years?

I personally think things are bad because Wall Street thinks a Dem is going to get elected and not extend the Bush tax cuts bringing a huge tax increase to Americans. A family of 4 making 40k a year will pay 1800 more in taxes.

What?

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 08:11 AM
Maybe you could elaborate on his desire to raise social security taxes...which will ding individuals and any LLC, hurting small business and individuals.

"Yeah! We raised the minimum wage" "lets increase the SS tax and put more people on the bubble, under the line of self sustainment and continue the cycle!"

I wouldnt' approve of any increase in SS unless it was (a) very small, and (more importantly) (b) was part of a huge systemic overhaul of SS, which is doomed in its current incarnation (see my sig).

I've made a life choice that has made things tougher lately, but we're by no means wealthy, the definition of working class, and by living with some basic fiscal responsibility, we're much better off now than even 4 years ago. I think most people that aren't, need to look in their garage and see how many dollars go to car payments, see how long its going to take them to pay off the furniture and bigscreen they can't really afford, and how much stupid money the've spent on CCs doing things they really weren't in a good place to spend.

That is no doubt true in many cases. Overspending on houses and consumer goods is a very stupid trend in our society over the last however many years.

oldandslow
03-13-2008, 08:20 AM
I drank orange juice this morning, and then it rained. Orange juice causes rain.

So presidential policy has no impact on the economy? Is that what you are attempting to say...

Then 'bama's taxing the rich won't have any impact either, and we can bring down the deficit.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 08:21 AM
I wouldnt' approve of any increase in SS unless it was (a) very small, and (more importantly) (b) was part of a huge systemic overhaul of SS, which is doomed in its current incarnation (see my sig).

Well problem is you are going to support someone who does, more than likely, right?

I'm not sure there is any tax out there that the Demcratic party doesn't want to raise. They come with an applause line about lowering them on the middle class, but are they trying to tell me that after nationalizing health care and raising SS or payroll taxes and fuel taxes and all the other taxes they'd hike in a moment if they could, we in the middle class will have a lower total tax burden? That's poppycock.

It's fine if a person thinks the American people are woefully undertaxed and the government should be a choke-point for all life's necessities, but at least present it honestly...

Cochise
03-13-2008, 08:25 AM
So presidential policy has no impact on the economy? Is that what you are attempting to say...



No, what' I'm saying is that you're "taxer were lowered and the economy is slowing, therefore..." statement is woefully simplistic. You know there are an infinite number of other factors at work, not the least of which is the cyclic nature of economies and stressors like the mortgage situation which are direct causes. Any reasonable person knows that is a huge oversimplification, I wouldn't be surprised at that from some others here. You don't seem to usually stoop to that though. :shrug:

I'm not exactly sure what the money I have saved in taxes over 7 years was supposed to do for the price of oil or anything else, anyway. If only I'd paid another couple grand, we'd have some kind of an energy source or oil would be more plentiful in nature?

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 08:25 AM
Isn't this about the same type of right wing wailing that greeting the Clinton taxes which led to reduced deficits and a booming economy for many years.
That economy also ended in a bust too! Just in time for Bush to take office. These booms/busts have more to do with Fed Policy. What one booms must bust at some point and they always do. It's a law. It was another artificially stimulated economy that had it's own speculative mal-investment called the dotcom boom.

Despite this, if you still want to take credit for it, then you'll have to spread it around as Clinton had a GOP Congress, eventhough I wouldn't say Clinton was as anti business as many liberal Dems tend to be.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 08:26 AM
Well problem is you are going to support someone who does, more than likely, right?

Probably, though my vote is irrelevant, to be specific. I do vote in Massachusetts after all, and when it was 49-1 against McGovern in '72, guess who the lone Democratic voting state was? Nonetheless, yes, probably.

I do view this election as a choice between lesser evils however. I"m not enamored with any of the candidates, to be honest.

I'm not sure there is any tax out there that the Demcratic party doesn't want to raise. They come with an applause line about lowering them on the middle class, but are they trying to tell me that after nationalizing health care and raising SS or payroll taxes and fuel taxes and all the other taxes they'd hike in a moment if they could, we in the middle class will have a lower total tax burden? That's poppycock.

I haven't looked at any numbers. I would prefer a high total tax burden, reduced spending and a reduced/eliminated deficit. With the economy in trouble, however, now is not necessarily the time.

Economic mismanagement seems to be the name of the game these days. Both sides do it, but I don't view either side as being worse at it, and I at least prefer the Democrats in other areas, so the economic issues dont' sway me enough.

If we had a deficit-reduction-minded Republican running who wasn't TOO gung ho about moral legislation and being the slave of the Religious Right, he'd likely get my vote (again, not that it matters, being in this state).

It's fine if a person thinks the American people are woefully undertaxed and the government should be a choke-point for all life's necessities, but at least present it honestly...

I don't think they're woefully undertaxed, but what I do see is tremendous wealth within our society, and I think a higher tax burden is EASILY sustainable -- at least until we get our fiscal house in order.

You're smart enough to comprehend that annual runaway MASSIVE deficits are bad for the economy in the long run, and bad for the country. In fact, I'd be STRONGLY in favor of BOTH reduced taxes and higher spending (short term on both) to help the current economy, except idiot BushCo has already run our fiscal ledger to hell and gone.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 08:28 AM
That economy also ended in a bust too! Just in time for Bush to take office. These booms/busts have more to do with Fed Policy. What one booms must bust at some point and they always do. It's a law. It was another artificially stimulated economy that had it's own speculative mal-investment called the dotcom boom.

Despite this, if you still want to take credit for it, then you'll have to spread it around as Clinton had a GOP Congress, eventhough I wouldn't say Clinton was as anti business as many liberal Dems tend to be.

Don't confuse cyclicality with booms and busts. If we even entered a recession in '00/'01, it was short term.

And I think even using your incorrect pejoratives, most people would trade 7 or so years of HUGE boom for 1 year of small bust.

And if you think booms/busts have only existed since the Fed, you are greatly mistaken.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 08:29 AM
The stock market hasn't moved in 7 years. The employment rate is starting to tank. Part of an investment environment from foreign investors would be a confidence in the leaders and in their policy. The amount of liquidity in the bond and stock market has had to boosted by the Federal Reserve with the consequence of pressure for inflation on the dollar. The most recent polls show that 43% of the population say they are worst off than 4 years ago. The federal dept is rising putting even more strain on the bond markets. It's the economy stupid. But will the present administration do the right thing that Bush I did and raise taxes?

A lot of our economic woes can be laid at the feet of Bush because he started a war which siphons funds out of the private sector into the govt sector where they are not used productively. Wars cost money and we have inflated our way out of every war, the exception being the Mexican War. War is just another govt program and is the flip side of the welfare state. It's not a war of national defense but of policing the world and nation building. So this is definitely effecting our economy now, just as Vietnam did eventually.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 08:30 AM
If we had a deficit-reduction-minded Republican running who wasn't TOO gung ho about moral legislation and being the slave of the Religious Right, he'd likely get my vote (again, not that it matters, being in this state).


You can't get elected promising budget cuts... people like me will enthusiastically vote for that candidate, but most people just want their handouts.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 08:31 AM
And I think even using your incorrect pejoratives, most people would trade 7 or so years of HUGE boom for 1 year of small bust.

I think 7-10 years of boom bookended by short busts pretty much describes the history of our economy through about the last 100 years.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 08:39 AM
You can't get elected promising budget cuts... people like me will enthusiastically vote for that candidate,[/quote]

Yes. Sadly this is true. Fiscal responsibility goes waaaay over the head of 95+% of voters, and as someone said "deficit reduction has no constituency".

but most people just want their handouts.

or their taxes cut.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 08:40 AM
I think 7-10 years of boom bookended by short busts pretty much describes the history of our economy through about the last 100 years.

Yes, with a few notable exceptions that's about right.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 08:42 AM
I know the type of economy I want is the type where the ultra-wealthy become even more ultra-wealthy, and everyone else stagnates. Eight more years of that would be swell.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 08:43 AM
I know the type of economy I want is the type where the ultra-wealthy become even more ultra-wealthy, and everyone else stagnates. Eight more years of that would be swell.

Ever look at a socialism? This is exactly what you get. The party bosses and politically connected are just the ultra-wealthy with no hope or incentive for anyone else getting there. Think about it.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 08:46 AM
Go to the following website and head for the charts on pages 20+, and particularly those on the last 2 pages (23 and 24).

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

Among other things you will see:

1. Reagan RAISED taxes. Not overall, but after the massive cuts, he raised them a bit in following years. Heavens to betsy, is it possible?!?! NOT ALL TAX INCREASES ARE BAD! (and they certainly are not all good either).

2. In constant dollars, the revenue impact of the Bush tax cuts are MASSIVE compared to all other tax increases/cuts since the 1960s, at least. As a percentage of GDP, they dwarf anything since Reagan of 1981, and the tax cuts of the late Clinton/early Bush era are larger, both as a percentage of GDP and in constant dollars, than the Bush 1 and Clinton tax increases of the early 1990s.

3. Since about 1998 (i.e. when it was clear we were FINALLY getting our fiscal house in order and had eliminated the deficit and were starting to pay down the debt a bit) we have had nothing but a steady march of very significant (compared to historical averages, both in terms of contsant dollars and as a percentage of GDP) tax cuts.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 08:51 AM
Ever look at a socialism? This is exactly what you get. The party bosses and politically connected are just the ultra-wealthy with no hope or incentive for anyone else getting there. Think about it.

Once AGAIN you overstate the case, make unwarranted assumptions, including most notably the worst case scenario.

What you describe is a Communist dictatorship. There is little doubt that in the type of highly socialistic capitalist societies that for example dominate Europe, there is a more even distribution of income across the population. This is actually provable.

http://www.indexmundi.com/france/distribution_of_family_income_gini_index.html

Distribution of family income - Gini index: 26.7 (2002)

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/distribution_of_family_income_gini_index.html

Distribution of family income - Gini index: 45 (2004)



Definition: This index measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of family income in a country. The index is calculated from the Lorenz curve, in which cumulative family income is plotted against the number of families arranged from the poorest to the richest. The index is the ratio of (a) the area between a country's Lorenz curve and the 45 degree helping line to (b) the entire triangular area under the 45 degree line. The more nearly equal a country's income distribution, the closer its Lorenz curve to the 45 degree line and the lower its Gini index, e.g., a Scandinavian country with an index of 25. The more unequal a country's income distribution, the farther its Lorenz curve from the 45 degree line and the higher its Gini index, e.g., a Sub-Saharan country with an index of 50. If income were distributed with perfect equality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the 45 degree line and the index would be zero; if income were distributed with perfect inequality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the horizontal axis and the right vertical axis and the index would be 100.

Source: CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/) - Unless otherwise noted, information in this page is accurate as of April 17, 2007


AMNORIX QUALIFIER: I fully realize that there's more to good economic management or desirable economic policy-making than trying to optimize/even distribution of income. I post this information not because I want to have France's economy (I don't) but only to refute BEP's post.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 08:56 AM
or their taxes cut.

Well given the choice of two candidates, one of whom runs on a platform of hiking taxes to permanently expand government in a myriad of ways, and one of whom on a platform of cutting taxes without the requisite reductions in government, I'll take the second one each time. It still sucks but at least that's half of what I want.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 08:56 AM
If you want to see an economy fall flat fast elect (Clinton to replace Bush).
The same claims made in 1992 are just as stupid today as they were proven to be in 1992.
The Bush tax cuts saved our ass after 9-11 and have kept our economy strong even through an unpopular war. Now you are sighting the current status of the economy, what about the last 7 years?
It's called the housing bubble. It created an ecomony that everyone championed. Cons and Reps actually pointed to that housing market as proof the economy was great and and thanked the tax cuts! All the while good jobs were replaced with worse ones and the deficit skyrockets.

That false economy is crashing to the ground in a HUGE mess. And the Republicans completely insane approach to running the country has lead to a fundamentally disaterous economic foundation. The dollar is worth nothing. We are in debt up to our eyeballs. We outsourced so many critical parts of our economy and we are entering an economic fight with a country who's just starting to figure out what they are doing and has the equivilant of most of the US population in MENSA-level intelligence. All the while we are spending all our national resources and collective national will fighting (over) a war to STAY dependant on oil rather than channelling all of those resources toward an move to get off oil.

It's crazy what they've done, but it's even crazier for guys like you to pretend that this mess is anything but a product of flawed policy priorities like claiming tax cuts are the solution to all that ails us.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 08:58 AM
Well given the choice of two candidates, one of whom runs on a platform of hiking taxes to permanently expand government in a myriad of ways, and one of whom on a platform of cutting taxes without the requisite reductions in government, I'll take the second one each time. It still sucks but at least that's half of what I want.
The destruction of our national economic strength in order to have the country operate in a way that makes you feel better.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 09:06 AM
The destruction of our national economic strength in order to have the country operate in a way that makes you feel better.

As if government annexation of double-digit percentage sectors of our economy doesn't reduce economic power?

Iowanian
03-13-2008, 09:10 AM
Just imagine how much better off the economic situation of the US govt would be if they'd cut the entitlement funding in half, and stop pretending that every person who enters or lives in this country is smart enough and deserving of college.


Someone has to boil the fries.

Hoover
03-13-2008, 09:23 AM
The same claims made in 1992 are just as stupid today as they were proven to be in 1992.

It's called the housing bubble. It created an ecomony that everyone championed. Cons and Reps actually pointed to that housing market as proof the economy was great and and thanked the tax cuts! All the while good jobs were replaced with worse ones and the deficit skyrockets.

That false economy is crashing to the ground in a HUGE mess. And the Republicans completely insane approach to running the country has lead to a fundamentally disaterous economic foundation. The dollar is worth nothing. We are in debt up to our eyeballs. We outsourced so many critical parts of our economy and we are entering an economic fight with a country who's just starting to figure out what they are doing and has the equivilant of most of the US population in MENSA-level intelligence. All the while we are spending all our national resources and collective national will fighting (over) a war to STAY dependant on oil rather than channelling all of those resources toward an move to get off oil.

It's crazy what they've done, but it's even crazier for guys like you to pretend that this mess is anything but a product of flawed policy priorities like claiming tax cuts are the solution to all that ails us.

What about Clinton's dot.com bubble. All his fault?

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 09:27 AM
Just imagine how much better off the economic situation of the US govt would be if they'd cut the entitlement funding in half, and stop pretending that every person who enters or lives in this country is smart enough and deserving of college.


Someone has to boil the fries.


I don't think funding of college programs is much more than a drop in the bucket of government entitlement spending.

Let's be clear -- what do you want cut? Social Security (which is a net profit for the government, currently)? Health care for the elderly (i.e. Medicare/Medicaid)? Perhaps Veterans benefits? WIC, which is a terrific program for poor mothers so we don't have a bunch of sickly/dying children.

Name the programs.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 09:28 AM
What about Clinton's dot.com bubble. All his fault?

This is the equivalent to Bush's housing bubble. Same thing.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 09:29 AM
What about Clinton's dot.com bubble. All his fault?

That particular bubble didn't systemically undermine the entire economy.

[img]http://allfinancialmatters.com/Graphics/Clinton&SP500.GIF[i/img]

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 09:29 AM
What about Clinton's dot.com bubble. All his fault?

That particular bubble didn't systemically undermine the entire economy.

http://allfinancialmatters.com/Graphics/Clinton&SP500.GIF

http://allfinancialmatters.com/Graphics/Clinton&DJIA.GIF

patteeu
03-13-2008, 10:59 AM
Patteeu wrote this in another thread on why 'bama is the devil...

Issue 4: Taxes.

Obama wants to raise them. But he doesn't want to raise them on everyone. He just wants to raise them anywhere that higher taxes might have a negative impact on our economy.

In my last post, I pointed out his plan to tax company's overseas operations in order to bribe companies at home to increase their overhead costs.

He also wants to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends as well as raising rates on the wealthy, i.e. people who are more likely to invest their money in the US economy than use it for consumption. By lowering the after tax return on investment, Obama policies will discourage both domestic and foreign investment in the US.
_______________


So tell me how Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have REALLY bolstered the economy...

At the present moment we are entering recession. Oil is at 110.00 a barrel. Unemployment is up. Consumer buying is down. We have a banking crisis and a housing bubble crisis.

What makes you think things would have been better if he hadn't reduced taxes on investment?

jAZ
03-13-2008, 11:03 AM
As if government annexation of double-digit percentage sectors of our economy doesn't reduce economic power?
Ask the business community if it would help them compete to have universal healthcare.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 11:07 AM
Isn't this about the same type of right wing wailing that greeting the Clinton taxes which led to reduced deficits and a booming economy for many years.

The Bush tax cuts were never primarily designed as economy boosters, which is my main complaint iwth them. They were designed to fix what right-wingers viewed as systemic complaints they had with the tax code.

How do you know that the '90's wouldn't have been even better if Clinton had done something like lowering the corporate tax rate relative to the individual income tax rate?

It's true that there were at least two aspects to the Bush tax cuts, but it's an exaggeration, IMO, to say that they were never primarily designed as economic boosters. The Bush tax cuts included components aimed at economic growth such as cutting rates on the highest tax brackets, on dividends, and on capital gains. They also included components to make the package politically sellable such as increased deductions for dependents (demanded by social conservatives and popular with lots of families from both parties), cuts to the rates of the middle class, and removal of some from the tax rolls altogether. Some might call these latter cuts some kind of Keynsian stimulus, but IMO they were there to sell the package of longer-term growth oriented cuts.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 11:11 AM
What about Clinton's dot.com bubble. All his fault?
The .COM bubble burst was almost inconsequential compared to this for a couple reasons.

1) Clinton's rational fiscal policies created a strong economic foundation. When it burst, we had a solid base to stand on.
2) The .Com boom itself was not artifical, but built upon technical and innovative revolution that continues to this day.
3) Clinton's wisdom to avoid the econmical sink-hole that is an invasion of Iraq (collapsing dollar, skyrocketing oil prices, trillions upon trillions of dollars of pointless spending) was yet another critical distiction between then and now.

I will say that Clinton's over-reach on deregulation played a huge role in the corporate pilfering that was Enron and all the rest.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 11:14 AM
This is the equivalent to Bush's housing bubble. Same thing.
In the sense that they both have the word "bubble" in them... yes. If you have no sense of what constituted each, then maybe. If you ignore the surrounding economic foundations each was built upon... sure.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 11:17 AM
Go to the following website and head for the charts on pages 20+, and particularly those on the last 2 pages (23 and 24).

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

Among other things you will see:

1. Reagan RAISED taxes. Not overall, but after the massive cuts, he raised them a bit in following years. Heavens to betsy, is it possible?!?! NOT ALL TAX INCREASES ARE BAD! (and they certainly are not all good either).

2. In constant dollars, the revenue impact of the Bush tax cuts are MASSIVE compared to all other tax increases/cuts since the 1960s, at least. As a percentage of GDP, they dwarf anything since Reagan of 1981, and the tax cuts of the late Clinton/early Bush era are larger, both as a percentage of GDP and in constant dollars, than the Bush 1 and Clinton tax increases of the early 1990s.

3. Since about 1998 (i.e. when it was clear we were FINALLY getting our fiscal house in order and had eliminated the deficit and were starting to pay down the debt a bit) we have had nothing but a steady march of very significant (compared to historical averages, both in terms of contsant dollars and as a percentage of GDP) tax cuts.

I don't believe we ever paid down our debt in the 90's. Whatever the case on that minor point, we certainly didn't get our house in order. The budget deficit is a minor part of our disorder. Our house won't be getting in order until we at least begin to address the looming entitlement issues that were well understood in 1998 but equally well ignored.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 11:23 AM
The destruction of our national economic strength in order to have the country operate in a way that makes you feel better.

How responsible is it for a candidate to propose a permanent 10% expansion of our federal budget (not accounting for growth of the promised new entitlements) when our national economic strength is facing such dire risks? Obama has promised over $300 billion in new spending programs on a $3 trillion baseline. Whatever you think of Bush's fiscal performance, how can you take Obama seriously when he commits himself to such expansive new permanent spending?

patteeu
03-13-2008, 11:24 AM
What about Clinton's dot.com bubble. All his fault?

The threat of a potential Bush presidency brought the dot.com's down and created Y2K.

mlyonsd
03-13-2008, 11:26 AM
How responsible is it for a candidate to propose a permanent 10% expansion of our federal budget (not accounting for growth of the promised new entitlements) when our national economic strength is facing such dire risks? Obama has promised over $300 billion in new spending programs on a $3 trillion baseline. Whatever you think of Bush's fiscal performance, how can you take Obama seriously when he commits himself to such expansive new permanent spending?

Haven't you heard? The heavily weighted Democratic congress will keep Obama's spending in check. Take it to the bank.

tiptap
03-13-2008, 11:30 AM
How responsible is it for a candidate to propose a permanent 10% expansion of our federal budget (not accounting for growth of the promised new entitlements) when our national economic strength is facing such dire risks? Obama has promised over $300 billion in new spending programs on a $3 trillion baseline. Whatever you think of Bush's fiscal performance, how can you take Obama seriously when he commits himself to such expansive new permanent spending?

Because fiscal Keynesian stimulation of the economy under Bush was for throwaway expenditure in Iraq. It might eventually help Iraqis and the immediate companies on the Defense dole. The investments Obama (Keynesian as well and again needed for stimulation) will benefit Americans and should lead to increase productivity. I know you don't see that as going to take place but that is how I see it and as such prefer those choices as more prudent to a healthy economy.

tiptap
03-13-2008, 11:34 AM
Haven't you heard? The heavily weighted Democratic congress will keep Obama's spending in check. Take it to the bank.

Will the heavily weighted Republican years didn't, so let's see. They certainly will be more vocal and cantankerous among themselves. There are plenty of conservative Democrats that will swing with the Republicans when they feel there are excesses.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 11:35 AM
Ask the business community if it would help them compete to have universal healthcare.

Ask the business community if it would help them compete if the tax code incentive that favors employer-based health insurance over privately acquired insurance were changed so that employers could get out of the healthcare business.

And while you're at it, ask the business community how it would help them compete if the outrageously high corporate tax rates were lowered and the American people funded their government directly instead of through the price of the domestically created products they buy while imports don't carry this burden.

And since we want the business community to compete, ask them if they would be more competitive if our individual income tax was repealed and replaced with sales or value added tax so that the cost of taxes could be stripped from exports and added to imports making US products more competitive with those of their foreign competitors in both domestic markets and foreign markets.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 11:37 AM
Ask the business community if it would help them compete to have universal healthcare.

Oh yeah, the business community is dying for liberalism. ROFL

That's like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 11:59 AM
Ask the business community if it would help them compete if the tax code incentive that favors employer-based health insurance over privately acquired insurance were changed so that employers could get out of the healthcare business.


Oh yeah, the business community is dying for liberalism. ROFL

That's like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

Actually, Jaz is right on this one. The business community is complaining about the cost of healthcare now too. They, along with larger corps, are willing to settle for govt HC. That's what I've been reading. They're even cutting back on these benefits too.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 12:01 PM
How do you know that the '90's wouldn't have been even better if Clinton had done something like lowering the corporate tax rate relative to the individual income tax rate?

Because, to be honest, it would be ridiculously hard for them to have been much better. But obviously it's impossible to prove it. It would have been dangerous if the economy had been much hotter than it was -- risks of overheating would be significant.

Also note that companies had absolutely no trouble through most of the 90s in expanding and funding expansion, and there was more than enough liquidity in the market. Individuals may have ended up richer, but it's hard to imagine the economy would have grown faster.

I can also point to extremely low unemployment rates to note that the economy could likely not have sustained much more growth than what it had. Who would have worked to support much more growth?

It's true that there were at least two aspects to the Bush tax cuts, but it's an exaggeration, IMO, to say that they were never primarily designed as economic boosters.

They weren't. They were mostly reflective of his campaign promises. When the economy slowed, they just added "and it will cure the recession" as a slogan to help support them. I thought remember thinking this distinctly at the time, and at least one book (Robert Rubin's) that I recently read also supported this conclusion.

After all, what do things like changing the tax rate/exemption on inheritance taxes have to do with short term stimulus?

The Bush tax cuts included components aimed at economic growth such as cutting rates on the highest tax brackets, on dividends, and on capital gains. They also included components to make the package politically sellable such as increased deductions for dependents (demanded by social conservatives and popular with lots of families from both parties), cuts to the rates of the middle class, and removal of some from the tax rolls altogether. Some might call these latter cuts some kind of Keynsian stimulus, but IMO they were there to sell the package of longer-term growth oriented cuts.

I won't say that NONE of the tax cuts had short term stimulus in mind, but the heavy weight of the package was for longer term systemic issues that consrvatives disliked in the then-existing tax code.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 12:01 PM
In the sense that they both have the word "bubble" in them... yes. If you have no sense of what constituted each, then maybe. If you ignore the surrounding economic foundations each was built upon... sure.
They were built on the same economic foundations: Keynesianism.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 12:02 PM
Actually, Jaz is right on this one. The business community is complaining about the cost of healthcare now too. They, along with larger corps, are willing to settle for govt HC. That's what I've been reading. They're even cutting back on these benefits too.

Right - the party that wants to regulate who they can hire and where they can work, that wants to jack up taxes in any and all areas, that runs on a drumbeat of soaking evil big corporations - they are REALLY pining for a liberal dynasty in Washington. I can't tell you how often I hear that mantra in the corridors of corporate america. LMAO

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 12:05 PM
Right - the party that wants to regulate who they can hire and where they can work, that wants to jack up taxes in any and all areas, that runs on a drumbeat of soaking evil big corporations - they are REALLY pining for a liberal dynasty in Washington. I can't tell you how often I hear that mantra in the corridors of corporate america. LMAO

Well then, you haven't been keeping up including on what I posted which said nothing about regulating who to hire, where to work or jacking up taxes. I simply pointed out that more businesses, due to skyrocketing costs on HC insurance, are on board for govt doing it instead.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 12:05 PM
I will say that Clinton's over-reach on deregulation played a huge role in the corporate pilfering that was Enron and all the rest.


I disagree. Those kinds of corporate excesses tend to come and go, and are part of the price you pay for having a capitalistic/entrepreneurial economy. On the whole, it's a price worth paying, and can't be rooted out entirely.

You want to allow people to drive, some will speed, and even drive recklessly (drunk or whatever). It's essentially the same.

You can regulate as much as you want, but you cant' stop it entirely unless you burden the entire system to a degree that strangles entrepreneurship. It's not worth that price.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 12:07 PM
Well then, you haven't been keeping up including on what I posted which said nothing about regulating who to hire, where to work or jacking up taxes. I simply pointed out to that more businesses, due to skyrocketing costs on HC insurance, are on board for govt doing it instead.

Despite having a pretty good higher ed system in this country, dedicated professors with experience in the greatest economy in the history of humanity, and good, well-meaning people shaping management thought around the country, occasionally liberals do slip through the cracks and into the business world. You're never going to help everyone, you just fix as many as you can. :evil: :Poke:

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 12:08 PM
I don't believe we ever paid down our debt in the 90's. Whatever the case on that minor point, we certainly didn't get our house in order. The budget deficit is a minor part of our disorder. Our house won't be getting in order until we at least begin to address the looming entitlement issues that were well understood in 1998 but equally well ignored.

Incorrect.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=597 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=headerlarge vAlign=top>Paying Down the National Debt

</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=bodytext align=left>During fiscal year 2000, the government reduced its publicly held debt by $223 billion - the largest one-year debt pay down in American history

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/roa-pay-down-debt.htm

Please note that this is in part because of Social Security's massive profitability. The budget (without Social Security) was still negative if memory serves.

We WERE getting our @#$%^!@ house in order until mammoth tax breaks and increased spending by the stupid Congress and stupid new President deprioritized debt elimination in favor of appeasing the masses of the right and/or left.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 12:09 PM
The threat of a potential Bush presidency brought the dot.com's down and created Y2K.

I've seen studies that Y2K helped the economy, actually. The paranoia led to structural upgrades/improvements in computer software and programming which increased productivity, etc.

Can't verify it, or remember where I read it, but it was interesting.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 12:11 PM
Despite having a pretty good higher ed system in this country, dedicated professors with experience in the greatest economy in the history of humanity, and good, well-meaning people shaping management thought around the country, occasionally liberals do slip through the cracks and into the business world. You're never going to help everyone, you just fix as many as you can. :evil: :Poke:

BTW this is not my opinion, and I was disappointed to read it. But it's been in mainstream economic articles showing a change in attitude due to the crisis. They believe it will be cheaper for them if the govt handles it. You are quite frankly not keeping up with a changing trend.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 12:14 PM
BTW this is not my opinion, and I was disappointed to read it. But it's been in mainstream economic articles showing a change in attitude due to the crisis. They believe it will be cheaper for them if the govt handles it. You are quite frankly not keeping up with a changing trend.

All you said was "more" believed this, which is to be expected when there is national discussion whereas there wasn't before. It says nothing of the share of who believes it compared to who doesn't. I'm sure there probably was some article appearing in Homer Economics to that effect, which you believed instantly and completely because it meshes with your desperate hope that liberals will take over the country again.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 12:19 PM
Ask the business community if it would help them compete if the tax code incentive that favors employer-based health insurance over privately acquired insurance were changed so that employers could get out of the healthcare business.

And while you're at it, ask the business community how it would help them compete if the outrageously high corporate tax rates were lowered and the American people funded their government directly instead of through the price of the domestically created products they buy while imports don't carry this burden.

And since we want the business community to compete, ask them if they would be more competitive if our individual income tax was repealed and replaced with sales or value added tax so that the cost of taxes could be stripped from exports and added to imports making US products more competitive with those of their foreign competitors in both domestic markets and foreign markets.


Many on here are under the odd notion that ultimately, the United States government is primarily funded by anyone/everyone other than the PEOPLE of the United States.

If the tax burden falls on "corporate America", what that really means is that it falls more heavily on PEOPLE who own corporations in America, as well as (directly or indirectly) their senior management, employees, suppliers and customers. In other words, Americans.

If the tax burden falls primarily on individuals, then it's obviously still borne by Americans.

And the same is true for issues such as healthcare.

When an elderly person goes into a hospital with serious issues and cannot pay for care, who ends up paying? Oh right, Americans. The tax payer.

And if that elderly person could've/would've/should've seen a doctor months ago for her problem, but didn't because she was uninsured, and now the problem si 10x worse and 100x more expensive, who pays the difference? Right, Americans.

And whether it's employer-based or individual-based or government-mandated, the cost of healthcare will ultimately be paid, in some fashion or another, by Americans.

Limiting the issue to healthcare, the questions in my mind are:

1. how to create an effective and cost-effective healthcare system that provides the most possible Americans with the most possible high quality healthcare.

2. how to have a healthcare system that doesn't unduly burden other areas of the economy.

3. how to promote excellent healthcare, continue funding medical research and improvements, technologies and pharmaceuticals.


I submit that our current "system" is completely disjointed, inefficient, and out of whack. Employer-bsaed healthcare is STUPID for several reasons:

A. It gets employers in the middle of something that really shouldnt' be their problem.

B. It reduces/slows corporate spending on their primary areas of focus and expertise by diverting time and money to non-core issues.

C. It's a double whammy when people are laid off -- they lsoe their jobs AND they lose their healthcare. This compounds in a down economy.

While it's possible that corporate funding (direct or indirect) must continue, it's time for a more sensible health care system. Market based, to be sure, but different and better than what we've had before. Whether it's universal or just nearly-universal, it ought to cover as many or more people than what it does now, and be far more sensible than our current ad hoc fiasco system.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 12:19 PM
All you said was "more" believed this, which is to be expected when there is national discussion whereas there wasn't before. It says nothing of the share of who believes it compared to who doesn't. I'm sure there probably was some article appearing in Homer Economics to that effect, which you believed instantly and completely because it meshes with your desperate hope that liberals will take over the country again.

No I did not.

Actually, Jaz is right on this one. The business community is complaining about the cost of healthcare now too. They, along with larger corps, are willing to settle for govt HC. That's what I've been reading. They're even cutting back on these benefits too.

I said this in my last post.
They believe it will be cheaper for them if the govt handles it.

If you can't keep up with what I actually posted it's no wonder you missed some of this reporting. You're as bad as some of the lawyers who change posts to something else said. Geesh!

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 12:27 PM
If you can't keep up with what I actually posted it's no wonder you missed some of this reporting. You're as bad as some of the lawyers who change posts to something else said. Geesh!


So do you think the consistent "misquotes" and confusion by every other poster on here has more to do with you, or more to do with every other poster on here who responds to you?

Cochise
03-13-2008, 12:30 PM
If they believe that their total tax burden is going to go down by installing Democrats in all branches of government, they need a checkup from the neckup. And I still dispute that there are significant numbers who believe this.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 12:32 PM
If they believe that their total tax burden is going to go down by installing Democrats in all branches of government, they need a checkup from the neckup. And I still dispute that there are significant numbers who believe this.
I didn't say that either.* I passed along a message on what I read on their HC insurance views. I think you should stick with looking @ zeros and ones.



* Mac could may just pass a NC bill too. Afterall Romney did.

mlyonsd
03-13-2008, 12:49 PM
Will the heavily weighted Republican years didn't, so let's see. They certainly will be more vocal and cantankerous among themselves. There are plenty of conservative Democrats that will swing with the Republicans when they feel there are excesses.

Absolutely. The republicans are by no means any better on spending. Huge disappointment.

Iowanian
03-13-2008, 01:20 PM
I don't think funding of college programs is much more than a drop in the bucket of government entitlement spending.

Let's be clear -- what do you want cut? Social Security (which is a net profit for the government, currently)? Health care for the elderly (i.e. Medicare/Medicaid)? Perhaps Veterans benefits? WIC, which is a terrific program for poor mothers so we don't have a bunch of sickly/dying children.

Name the programs.

amx,

I'm under some deadlines with some pending issues that will take me away, and have some meetings coming up tonight if they don't.

I'm not ignoring your question and think its fair. I'll try to come back and address it when I have time to provide specific answers.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 01:34 PM
Actually, Jaz is right on this one. The business community is complaining about the cost of healthcare now too. They, along with larger corps, are willing to settle for govt HC. That's what I've been reading. They're even cutting back on these benefits too.

I just happen to work in the high-tech industry and work with the CFO's and CEO's of many tech sector companies. I've raised this question directly a number of times in forums and ultimately, the tax burden isn't a priority. Companies don't make business decisions based upon tax laws. It's impactful, but they basically choose to work within the rules and minimize their burden, whatever those rules may be.

The real issues facing companies that offer the future of our economy (high wage, high skill jobs based on new innovation) come down two issues. Education and Healthcare.

They need a skilled workforce and particularly students motivated to go into engineering rather than finance or law or the like. They need innovation and creativity and an ability to learn. And they have a huge (and rapidly increasing) burden from healthcare. But from lack of employee productivity and increasing costs associated with a screwed up system, an aging employee pools and the like.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 01:45 PM
amx,

I'm under some deadlines with some pending issues that will take me away, and have some meetings coming up tonight if they don't.

I'm not ignoring your question and think its fair. I'll try to come back and address it when I have time to provide specific answers.

No worries. Believe me, I know that entitlement programs are a big issue, and a growing "problem" if in no other sense than in the sense that they are growing at X percent, which is unsustainably higher than the growth in the percentage of Americans in the workforce.

Many entitlement programs are a net plus to the economy, however. Social Security is a terrific program. A resounding success. It's unsustainable in its current form however.

banyon
03-13-2008, 01:46 PM
So do you think the consistent "misquotes" and confusion by every other poster on here has more to do with you, or more to do with every other poster on here who responds to you?

She probably put you on ignore for pointing this out. :)

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 01:46 PM
The real issues facing companies that offer the future of our economy (high wage, high skill jobs based on new innovation) come down two issues. Education and Healthcare.

They need a skilled workforce and particularly students motivated to go into engineering rather than finance or law or the like. They need innovation and creativity and an ability to learn. And they have a huge (and rapidly increasing) burden from healthcare. But from lack of employee productivity and increasing costs associated with a screwed up system, an aging employee pools and the like.


Education is a particular problem in America. The screwed up public school system does nothing to encourage quality math/science teachers.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 01:47 PM
She probably put you on ignore for pointing this out. :)

Sure, but sooner or later, she'll have nobody to argue with. :;

Cochise
03-13-2008, 02:15 PM
She probably put you on ignore for pointing this out. :)

No, he'll probably just get negative rep.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 02:39 PM
Because, to be honest, it would be ridiculously hard for them to have been much better. But obviously it's impossible to prove it. It would have been dangerous if the economy had been much hotter than it was -- risks of overheating would be significant.

Also note that companies had absolutely no trouble through most of the 90s in expanding and funding expansion, and there was more than enough liquidity in the market. Individuals may have ended up richer, but it's hard to imagine the economy would have grown faster.

I can also point to extremely low unemployment rates to note that the economy could likely not have sustained much more growth than what it had. Who would have worked to support much more growth?



They weren't. They were mostly reflective of his campaign promises. When the economy slowed, they just added "and it will cure the recession" as a slogan to help support them. I thought remember thinking this distinctly at the time, and at least one book (Robert Rubin's) that I recently read also supported this conclusion.

After all, what do things like changing the tax rate/exemption on inheritance taxes have to do with short term stimulus?



I won't say that NONE of the tax cuts had short term stimulus in mind, but the heavy weight of the package was for longer term systemic issues that consrvatives disliked in the then-existing tax code.

I think we're more in agreement than disagreement on the Bush tax cuts. The parts of the cuts that I liked and that I consider to be aimed at bolstering the economy are the parts you call "longer term systemic issues that conservatives disliked in the then-existing tax code."

patteeu
03-13-2008, 02:43 PM
Incorrect.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=597 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=headerlarge vAlign=top>Paying Down the National Debt

</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=bodytext align=left>During fiscal year 2000, the government reduced its publicly held debt by $223 billion - the largest one-year debt pay down in American history

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/roa-pay-down-debt.htm

Please note that this is in part because of Social Security's massive profitability. The budget (without Social Security) was still negative if memory serves.

We WERE getting our @#$%^!@ house in order until mammoth tax breaks and increased spending by the stupid Congress and stupid new President deprioritized debt elimination in favor of appeasing the masses of the right and/or left.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

OK, I stand corrected on the issue of the public debt.

No one had begun to address the real fiscal problems that were looming though so on the issue of getting our house in order we can agree to disagree.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 02:48 PM
I've seen studies that Y2K helped the economy, actually. The paranoia led to structural upgrades/improvements in computer software and programming which increased productivity, etc.

Can't verify it, or remember where I read it, but it was interesting.

I agree with that. I'm suggesting that Y2K contributed to another version of the tech bubble though. All that infrastructure spending came to a grinding halt immediately after Y2K had passed. And then there's also the broken window fallacy aspect to the scenario.

Amnorix
03-13-2008, 02:52 PM
OK, I stand corrected on the issue of the public debt.

No one had begun to address the real fiscal problems that were looming though so on the issue of getting our house in order we can agree to disagree.


IMHO getting our fiscal house back in order by eliminating structural deficits is the first step to getting our house back in order. Then we can tackle systemic problems with entitlements.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 04:53 PM
IMHO getting our fiscal house back in order by eliminating structural deficits is the first step to getting our house back in order. Then we can tackle systemic problems with entitlements.

I'll agree that it's a first step. But, by far, the most difficult part of the climb remains ahead.

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/media/20060607_china1.jpg