PDA

View Full Version : Elections Greenspan: McCain's tax cuts rely on an "infinite piggy bank" that doesn't exist.


Direckshun
09-14-2008, 05:38 PM
Once again, McCain getting absolute exposed on the economy and taxes.

Apparently Greenspan, who lest we forget is a lifelong Republican and good friend of McCain, is panning (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aKZG._gG2NVI&refer=politics) McCain's tax policy that calls for $3.3 trillion in cuts.

In case you're more concerned with lipstick on a pig than you are economic policy, let me give you a refresher on what McCain wants to do: Extend Bush's tax cuts for the country's richest. Reduce the top corporate rate. Repeal the alternative minimum tax. Double exemptions for dependents.
End result is about $3.3 trillion, set off by virtually no reductions in spending.

According to Greenspan: ``I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money.''
Now, as the Obama campaign is wont to remind us (http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/Press/McCain%20alan%20greenspan%20memo%20FINAL%209-13.pdf), McCain's been an outspoken fan of Greenspan and might want to consider returning to Greenspan's financial policies. And of course, Obama outlines his tax plan in the release.

Does McCain still not speak for McCain on economic matters, I wonder.

banyon
09-14-2008, 05:40 PM
cue RINGLEADER to tell you that cutting taxes creates magic money out of pixie dust.

Reaper16
09-14-2008, 05:59 PM
Does McCain still not speak for McCain on economic matters, I wonder.
Does McCain speak for McCain about anything anymore? It's all on-message, on-message, on-message all of the time.

Smed1065
09-14-2008, 06:03 PM
But he will not raise taxes while improving life.

He can not figure math because of injuries as a POW.

Its not his fault he can not use a calculator or computer.

Basher for service to country.

Communist.

RINGLEADER
09-14-2008, 06:10 PM
cue RINGLEADER to tell you that cutting taxes creates magic money out of pixie dust.

No, but revenues do go up. And you can't show me a chart or piece of evidence that shows that revneues haven't gone up after the Bush tax cuts. That's all I've ever said.

Approx. $2.0 trillion in revenues to the treasury in Clinton's last year.
Approx. $2.5 trillion in revenues to the treasury last year.

That even includes the recession that we hit in Bush's first six months of office, 9/11, etc., etc.

But putting that aside for a moment, do you really think that spending and entitlements will be reduced in an Obama administration? Really do you?

Pitt Gorilla
09-14-2008, 06:12 PM
No, but revenues do go up. And you can't show me a chart or piece of evidence that shows that revneues haven't gone up after the Bush tax cuts. That's all I've ever said.

But putting that aside for a moment, do you really think that spending and entitlements will be reduced in an Obama administration? Really do you?Cut taxes to zero, then, ensuring infinite tax revenue.

Direckshun
09-14-2008, 06:14 PM
No, but revenues do go up. And you can't show me a chart or piece of evidence that shows that revneues haven't gone up after the Bush tax cuts. That's all I've ever said.

Approx. $2.0 trillion in revenues to the treasury in Clinton's last year.
Approx. $2.5 trillion in revenues to the treasury last year.

That even includes the recession that we hit in Bush's first six months of office, 9/11, etc., etc.

But putting that aside for a moment, do you really think that spending and entitlements will be reduced in an Obama administration? Really do you?

The thing you're doing is focusing on the bottom line, with no regard to details. We've seen greater revenue from the Bush tax cuts, but for whom?

irishjayhawk
09-14-2008, 06:18 PM
The thing you're doing is focusing on the bottom line, with no regard to details. We've seen greater revenue from the Bush tax cuts, but for whom?

And is 2 trillion equal to 2.5 trillion now? With inflation and all?

RINGLEADER
09-14-2008, 06:26 PM
The thing you're doing is focusing on the bottom line, with no regard to details. We've seen greater revenue from the Bush tax cuts, but for whom?

The US Treasury.

For the record I've never made an issue of how Obama would use the money if he's elected. If he's elected then he won and he gets to have all the resources he needs to effectuate his policies. What I don't understand is why he wants to raise taxes -- even if you narrowly look at certain taxes that spur investment like capital gains taxes -- when it has been shown over and over again that they bring in less revenue.

If he wins, you'd think he'd want as much revenue as possible to do what he wants. Instead he thinks there's a need for "fairness" (i.e., redistribution of wealth). I thought history pretty much showed socialism doesn't work so well.

RINGLEADER
09-14-2008, 06:29 PM
And is 2 trillion equal to 2.5 trillion now? With inflation and all?

I don't think we've experienced 20% inflation over the past 4 years. But thanks for at least acknowledging that revenues went up. It's more than I get from most of the Obama supporters I talk to. On edit: You also have to account for other variables including population growth, employment, etc. But raising taxes, as Obama himself recently acknowledged, is not a wise thing to do when an economy is not experiencing strong growth.

irishjayhawk
09-14-2008, 06:42 PM
I don't think we've experienced 20% inflation over the past 4 years. But thanks for at least acknowledging that revenues went up. It's more than I get from most of the Obama supporters I talk to. On edit: You also have to account for other variables including population growth, employment, etc. But raising taxes, as Obama himself recently acknowledged, is not a wise thing to do when an economy is not experiencing strong growth.

It seems to me you want to win the battle but lose the war with getting this admission.

Deficits are at an all time high even if revenues are up. Therefore, it's pretty irrelevant. Isn't it?

whoman69
09-14-2008, 06:44 PM
I don't think we've experienced 20% inflation over the past 4 years. But thanks for at least acknowledging that revenues went up. It's more than I get from most of the Obama supporters I talk to. On edit: You also have to account for other variables including population growth, employment, etc. But raising taxes, as Obama himself recently acknowledged, is not a wise thing to do when an economy is not experiencing strong growth.

That would be not in 4 years but in eight years. Inflation has been actually 25% in that time. http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/CurrentCPI.asp
Thank you for playing, but try again.

VAChief
09-14-2008, 06:45 PM
I don't think we've experienced 20% inflation over the past 4 years. But thanks for at least acknowledging that revenues went up. It's more than I get from most of the Obama supporters I talk to. On edit: You also have to account for other variables including population growth, employment, etc. But raising taxes, as Obama himself recently acknowledged, is not a wise thing to do when an economy is not experiencing strong growth.

If you are comparing the last year of Clinton, with last year, wouldn't that be a at least a 7 year difference? I would think 20% inflation over that amount of time would be fairly modest.

RINGLEADER
09-14-2008, 06:49 PM
It seems to me you want to win the battle but lose the war with getting this admission.

Deficits are at an all time high even if revenues are up. Therefore, it's pretty irrelevant. Isn't it?

Different point. Deficits are high because spending is out of control. But if you increase tax rates -- absent an Internet boom -- you're going to surpress revenues. I'm not advocating this position, I'm just looking at the numbers.

In regards to spending I'd love to have Obama explain how he's going to do all the things he's promising to do and a) not raise taxes on anyone but the evil rich or b) not incur even more deficit spending.

And I doubt that McCain will be able to change much either in regards to spending.

Eventually the bank will run dry and then everyone will deal with the problem. But I hope whoever wins imposes some fiscal restraint.

RINGLEADER
09-14-2008, 06:50 PM
If you are comparing the last year of Clinton, with last year, wouldn't that be a at least a 7 year difference? I would think 20% inflation over that amount of time would be fairly modest.

No, the final stimulus from 2003 is the chart from the treasury that I pointed everyone to before. Revenues actually decreased at the tail end of 2001 because of the recession and 9/11. The change in revenues from that date is even greater.

RINGLEADER
09-14-2008, 06:51 PM
That would be not in 4 years but in eight years. Inflation has been actually 25% in that time. http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/CurrentCPI.asp
Thank you for playing, but try again.

Yeah, see my post below. Or I guess it's above.

irishjayhawk
09-14-2008, 07:04 PM
Different point. Deficits are high because spending is out of control. But if you increase tax rates -- absent an Internet boom -- you're going to surpress revenues. I'm not advocating this position, I'm just looking at the numbers.

In regards to spending I'd love to have Obama explain how he's going to do all the things he's promising to do and a) not raise taxes on anyone but the evil rich or b) not incur even more deficit spending.

And I doubt that McCain will be able to change much either in regards to spending.

Eventually the bank will run dry and then everyone will deal with the problem. But I hope whoever wins imposes some fiscal restraint.

Right.

So, really, our problem is the Bush Tax CUTS and the Bush SPENDING.

Say Obama RAISES taxes but SPENDING stays the same or is RAISED slightly, it won't affect the deficit like Bush's fiscality has.

HonestChieffan
09-14-2008, 07:07 PM
Revenue is not the same as tax rates. Obamas huge spending and his promices of tax cuts for all but the "rich" will lead to declines across the board in total revenue and even greater deficits plus we will have the burden of all the social programs he wants to start.

irishjayhawk
09-14-2008, 07:09 PM
Revenue is not the same as tax rates. Obamas huge spending and his promices of tax cuts for all but the "rich" will lead to declines across the board in total revenue and even greater deficits plus we will have the burden of all the social programs he wants to start.

Sorry, no one can take you seriously.

Ultra Peanut
09-14-2008, 07:10 PM
TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Nightfyre
09-14-2008, 08:43 PM
While I firmly believe that Greenspan is correct in this matter in that fiscal irresponsibility is a HUGE problem (especially for the dollar) and that McCain's plan sucks nuts, I also find Greenspan criticizing anyone on economics to be laughable after he fueled the tech bubbles of the late 90s and helped to setup this gigantic housing fiasco. Just sayin'. Don't disagree with the premise, disagree with the accuser's hypocrisy.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-14-2008, 09:07 PM
The last act of any government is to loot the country.

Amnorix
09-14-2008, 09:24 PM
No, but revenues do go up. And you can't show me a chart or piece of evidence that shows that revneues haven't gone up after the Bush tax cuts. That's all I've ever said.

Approx. $2.0 trillion in revenues to the treasury in Clinton's last year.
Approx. $2.5 trillion in revenues to the treasury last year.

That even includes the recession that we hit in Bush's first six months of office, 9/11, etc., etc.

But putting that aside for a moment, do you really think that spending and entitlements will be reduced in an Obama administration? Really do you?


I'm not going to research this as I have no time, but your posts in this thread make no sense Ringleader.

Someone stated, quite correctly, that inflation alone could account for much/all of the increase in revenues that you stated above, which again appears to us to compare 2000 to 2007 revenues.

You responded by some kind of incomprehensible reference to the year 2003.

Feel free to clarify, as I freely admit that your refutation made no sense to me at all.

irishjayhawk
09-14-2008, 09:35 PM
The US Treasury.

For the record I've never made an issue of how Obama would use the money if he's elected. If he's elected then he won and he gets to have all the resources he needs to effectuate his policies. What I don't understand is why he wants to raise taxes -- even if you narrowly look at certain taxes that spur investment like capital gains taxes -- when it has been shown over and over again that they bring in less revenue.

If he wins, you'd think he'd want as much revenue as possible to do what he wants. Instead he thinks there's a need for "fairness" (i.e., redistribution of wealth). I thought history pretty much showed socialism doesn't work so well.

Technically, I think history has shown that socialism doesn't work as long as its controlled by the few. Most pure socialist countries in history have also been totalitarian-istic.

Logical
09-14-2008, 09:41 PM
POW


It solves and excuses everything.

J Diddy
09-14-2008, 09:46 PM
POW


It solves and excuses everything.


you mock him because he can't count, the vc kicked the count right out of him

Logical
09-14-2008, 10:00 PM
you mock him because he can't count, the vc kicked the count right out of himThe VC were a nefarious enemy taking away the mans ability to count, be faithful to women, and create and insatiable desire to conquer and occupy countries.

J Diddy
09-14-2008, 10:02 PM
The VC were a nefarious enemy taking away the mans ability to count, be faithful to women, and create and unsatiable desire to conquer and occupy countries.


damn vc, damn you:cuss: damn you vc

splatbass
09-14-2008, 10:19 PM
Approx. $2.0 trillion in revenues to the treasury in Clinton's last year.
Approx. $2.5 trillion in revenues to the treasury last year.



Only 500 billion more today than 8 years ago? Don't you think that the increased workforce and the increase in wages in 8 years would account for at least a big chunk of that? Your figures don't show that it was tax cuts that increased the revenue, and I believe it would have increased at least that much in 8 years with no changes at all.

Cave Johnson
09-14-2008, 11:44 PM
While I firmly believe that Greenspan is correct in this matter in that fiscal irresponsibility is a HUGE problem (especially for the dollar) and that McCain's plan sucks nuts, I also find Greenspan criticizing anyone on economics to be laughable after he fueled the tech bubbles of the late 90s and helped to setup this gigantic housing fiasco. Just sayin'. Don't disagree with the premise, disagree with the accuser's hypocrisy.

I'm not sure you can lay the housing bubble at Greenspan's feet. This article makes a pretty convincing case, IMO, that it's the fault of the usual suspect.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712

"By the time George W. Bush was sworn in, parts of this bright picture had begun to dim. The tech boom was over. The nasdaq fell 15 percent in the single month of April 2000, and no one knew for sure what effect the collapse of the Internet bubble would have on the real economy. It was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, a time to prime the pump by spending more money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all of which America desperately needed, and still does, but which the Clinton administration had postponed in its relentless drive to eliminate the deficit. Bill Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position to pursue such policies. Remember the presidential debates in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush, and how the two men argued over how to spend America’s anticipated $2.2 trillion budget surplus? The country could well have afforded to ramp up domestic investment in key areas. In fact, doing so would have staved off recession in the short run while spurring growth in the long run. "

"You’ll still hear some—and, loudly, the president himself—argue that the administration’s tax cuts were meant to stimulate the economy, but this was never true. The bang for the buck—the amount of stimulus per dollar of deficit—was astonishingly low. Therefore, the job of economic stimulation fell to the Federal Reserve Board, which stepped on the accelerator in a historically unprecedented way, driving interest rates down to 1 percent. In real terms, taking inflation into account, interest rates actually dropped to negative 2 percent. The predictable result was a consumer spending spree."

Mr. Laz
09-14-2008, 11:53 PM
I have it on good authority that Greenspan is a communist and a terrorist sympathizer who is just try to trick the American people into not voting for McCain because he hates the United States.

Nightfyre
09-15-2008, 06:59 AM
I'm not sure you can lay the housing bubble at Greenspan's feet. This article makes a pretty convincing case, IMO, that it's the fault of the usual suspect.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712

"By the time George W. Bush was sworn in, parts of this bright picture had begun to dim. The tech boom was over. The nasdaq fell 15 percent in the single month of April 2000, and no one knew for sure what effect the collapse of the Internet bubble would have on the real economy. It was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, a time to prime the pump by spending more money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all of which America desperately needed, and still does, but which the Clinton administration had postponed in its relentless drive to eliminate the deficit. Bill Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position to pursue such policies. Remember the presidential debates in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush, and how the two men argued over how to spend America’s anticipated $2.2 trillion budget surplus? The country could well have afforded to ramp up domestic investment in key areas. In fact, doing so would have staved off recession in the short run while spurring growth in the long run. "

"You’ll still hear some—and, loudly, the president himself—argue that the administration’s tax cuts were meant to stimulate the economy, but this was never true. The bang for the buck—the amount of stimulus per dollar of deficit—was astonishingly low. Therefore, the job of economic stimulation fell to the Federal Reserve Board, which stepped on the accelerator in a historically unprecedented way, driving interest rates down to 1 percent. In real terms, taking inflation into account, interest rates actually dropped to negative 2 percent. The predictable result was a consumer spending spree."

The Federal Reserve's Accelerator is the credit market. By stimulating the credit market to an insane degree, he all but assured malinvestment. Just as he did with the internet bubble of the late 90s. As for Keynesian economics, it has been so brutally misapplied that we obviously can't trust our politicians with it.

tiptap
09-15-2008, 07:08 AM
The consumer spending spree was funneled in one sector though. The housing market. It was Bush's thought that a ownership economy meant all people should have a house. While it is a good goal, the bank actually owns the house and therefore doesn't really provide ownership in the classical understanding. No wonder so many walked away from loans that made no sense economically for them personally.

I would suggest that the old Rooselvelt separation of housing mortgages and investment banking, removed by Republicans, might have shielded the markets from the excesses that now require such dire restructuring.

mlyonsd
09-15-2008, 07:33 AM
At some point, when the rich have been taxed to bring them down the the middle class, someone is going to wake up and realize spending has got to be cut.

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2008, 09:35 AM
Once again, McCain getting absolute exposed on the economy and taxes.

Apparently Greenspan, who lest we forget is a lifelong Republican and good friend of McCain, is panning (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aKZG._gG2NVI&refer=politics) McCain's tax policy that calls for $3.3 trillion in cuts.


In case you're more concerned with lipstick on a pig than you are economic policy, let me give you a refresher on what McCain wants to do:
Extend Bush's tax cuts for the country's richest.
Reduce the top corporate rate.
Repeal the alternative minimum tax.
Double exemptions for dependents.End result is about $3.3 trillion, set off by virtually no reductions in spending.

According to Greenspan:
Now, as the Obama campaign is wont to remind us (http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/Press/McCain%20alan%20greenspan%20memo%20FINAL%209-13.pdf), McCain's been an outspoken fan of Greenspan and might want to consider returning to Greenspan's financial policies. And of course, Obama outlines his tax plan in the release.

Does McCain still not speak for McCain on economic matters, I wonder.


There are no cuts in spending in Obama's plan either. Further more Obama wants to expand taxes on businesses, expand the FMLA, expand governemnt involvement in healthcare, and spend money on special interest groups. He'll also end up raising taxes to complete his plans inspite of what he's saying pre-election.

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2008, 09:38 AM
The consumer spending spree was funneled in one sector though. The housing market. It was Bush's thought that a ownership economy meant all people should have a house. While it is a good goal, the bank actually owns the house and therefore doesn't really provide ownership in the classical understanding. No wonder so many walked away from loans that made no sense economically for them personally.

I would suggest that the old Rooselvelt separation of housing mortgages and investment banking, removed by Republicans, might have shielded the markets from the excesses that now require such dire restructuring.


Many of these loans were sold to the fannie and fred which is why it has basically collapsed and allowed banks to sell these crappy loan products to less than qualified consumers. The banks didn't care if the customer was solvent. Further more the line between banks and investment houses was not only removed by a republican congress, but signed in to law by Bill Clinton.

banyon
09-15-2008, 05:04 PM
No, but revenues do go up. And you can't show me a chart or piece of evidence that shows that revneues haven't gone up after the Bush tax cuts. That's all I've ever said.

Approx. $2.0 trillion in revenues to the treasury in Clinton's last year.
Approx. $2.5 trillion in revenues to the treasury last year.

That even includes the recession that we hit in Bush's first six months of office, 9/11, etc., etc.

But putting that aside for a moment, do you really think that spending and entitlements will be reduced in an Obama administration? Really do you?

Revenue from Income taxes went down, as I've pointed out (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=189842&highlight=revenue+cuts&page=82)to you several times with the numbers.

Your numbers appear to include Social Security, FICA, etc, which have naturally increased with the # of contributors and inflation.

Here they are again, though:

Here are the inflation-adjusted numbers from INCOME TAX revenues which is what we were fighting about.

(in millions of dollars)

2000 1,004,462
2001 994,939
2002 858,345
2003 793,699
2004 808,959
2005 927,722

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

BIG_DADDY
09-15-2008, 05:11 PM
I have it on good authority that Greenspan is a communist and a terrorist sympathizer who is just try to trick the American people into not voting for McCain because he hates the United States.

umm OK. Yea he is unbiased and only cares about what is best for our citizens. LMAO WOW

Calcountry
09-15-2008, 05:18 PM
Cut taxes to zero, then, ensuring infinite tax revenue.
THe big debate here, is where does the laffer curve return back to the y axis.

If it is true, as you purport, that we are already below the apex of the curve, then it is true, a cut in taxes will produce less revenue.

But this discussion, if used by a politician, would go WAY over the head of the average voter. I mean, I remember the recession, that was already under way under Clinton, and exacerbated by the 9/11 attacks, being blamed on Bush's policies that weren't even enacted yet in 2001.

The media chastised Bush back in the 00 campaign for "talking down" the economy, as if, all that a person had to do was bad mouth the economy and down it would go. No, this crises that you are seeing now, is a systemic problem that has been papered over, and rehashed and refinanced for decades now. People walked away from their houses, and that has started a dominoe effect, or "negative" multiplier effect that is now rippling through the economy.

The only answer the government has is to print more money, and secure more oil, with which to back that currency with.

Calcountry
09-15-2008, 05:25 PM
The consumer spending spree was funneled in one sector though. The housing market. It was Bush's thought that a ownership economy meant all people should have a house. While it is a good goal, the bank actually owns the house and therefore doesn't really provide ownership in the classical understanding. No wonder so many walked away from loans that made no sense economically for them personally.

I would suggest that the old Rooselvelt separation of housing mortgages and investment banking, removed by Republicans, might have shielded the markets from the excesses that now require such dire restructuring.
Yes, but there was a reason that Banks use to require a 20% down, plus the ability to pay on one income. All of this was thrown out the window in recent decades in order to keep them real estate prices going up, up, up.

Can't qualify on one income, no problem, use your wifes baby sitter money. As much as 50 % of your income to the mortgage, no problem. No money down, no problem? Less than stellar credit, no problem, here are the keys to your home, you can qualify online in minutes.

Refinance: fast track, no appraisal necessary.

To a lot of slobs, that is just free money, and when the bill came, they just pissed on the floor until the smell got to bad, then moved away in their huge SUV's with tinted windows, that they paid for with all of that free mortgage money.

If you lie down with pigs, even with lipstick, it will be a smelly shit mess. Just ask Hog farmer.

eazyb81
09-15-2008, 05:35 PM
While I firmly believe that Greenspan is correct in this matter in that fiscal irresponsibility is a HUGE problem (especially for the dollar) and that McCain's plan sucks nuts, I also find Greenspan criticizing anyone on economics to be laughable after he fueled the tech bubbles of the late 90s and helped to setup this gigantic housing fiasco. Just sayin'. Don't disagree with the premise, disagree with the accuser's hypocrisy.

I understand your premise, but I can't completely place the blame on Greenspan. It's easy for everyone to sit back in hindsight and lay blame at his feet for allowing such large amounts of cheap credit to flow in this economy, but no one was saying a peep at the time because everyone was greedy. Lenders gave anyone a mortgage because they knew they wouldn't be the one holding it in the long run, and mortgage applicants didn't have the foresight to see that the mortgages they were signing up for would explode on them down the line. It all added up to a perfect storm.