Geithner Won’t Rule Out New Taxes for Middle Class

[petegz28]

To get the economy back on track, will President Barack Obama have to break his pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans? In a “This Week” exclusive, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told me, "We’re going to have to do what’s necessary.”

Geithner was clear that he believes a key component of economic recovery is deficit reduction. When I gave him several opportunities to rule out a middle class tax hike, he wouldn’t do it.

“We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically,” Geithner told me. “And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”

“We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we convince the American people that we are going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established,” he said.

While Geithner told me, “There are signs the recession is easing,” he warned that, “We have a ways to go.”

“I want to emphasize the basic reality that unemployment is very high in this country,” the secretary said. But, he underlined that the administration is “going to do what is necessary to bring growth back on track.”

Turning to the bank bailout, he told me it is “quite unlikely” that the U.S. Treasury will go back to Congress to ask for more funding for the financial rescue package.

"We do not plan to ask for more money and I think it’s quite unlikely that we do," Geithner said in his most blunt language to date on TARP funding. The secretary said that today the TARP has roughly $130 billion, in part due to more than $70 billion that has already come back into the government.

Geithner also strongly endorsed legislation currently pending in the House that would increase the power of the SEC and give shareholders more rights to vote on executive compensation. He insisted that Republican criticism that the government is overly involved in the financial system is unfounded.

"Everybody understands that we cannot have our financial system go back to the practices that brought this economy to the brink of collapse," he told me. "It is going to take fundamental reform."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/geithner-wont-rule-out-new-taxes-for-middle-class.html

[petegz28]

My only question is; if we have to bring down these deficits dramatically, why do we keep adding to them on a monthly, if not weekly basis?

[billay]

"Everybody understands that we cannot have our financial system go back to the practices that brought this economy to the brink of collapse," he told me. "It is going to take fundamental reform."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/geithner-wont-rule-out-new-taxes-for-middle-class.html


LOL. This is the same administration that has spent more money then any adminstration and is doing the same thing as the last president. Please do raise taxes on the middle class it will ensure that Obama will be a 1 term president.

[billay]

Also its funny the guy who doesn't pay his taxes is talking about raising taxes. The average American is being screwed folks.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh so what does Geithner have to do with this decision...he determines and makes law now?

[BucEyedPea]

My only question is; if we have to bring down these deficits dramatically, why do we keep adding to them on a monthly, if not weekly basis?

Oh, please don't use "we" because it's not "we"....it's "them." We are now "us" versus "them" like most collectivist countries.

[petegz28]

Also its funny the guy who doesn't pay his taxes is talking about raising taxes. The average American is being screwed folks.

Amazing, isn't it? If things don't turn soon Obama will be 1 and done. I think the Dems are already looking at losing seats next year though they may still retain a majority, their "no need for Repubs" mentality will no longer be able to be applied.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh, and btw, this IS the death knell for the Democrats as well as Obama.
Remember Bush Sr's read my lips: " No new taxes" but then renegged. That ousted him. Then B Clinton pulled in Republicans.
How anyone continues to believe the contenders for president is beyond me.

[billay]

Remember when everyone laughed at Ron Paul at those debates?

[petegz28]

Oh, please don't use "we" because it's not "we"....it's "them." We are now "us" versus "them" like most collectivist countries.

Point taken.

[Chief Faithful]

T

“We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically,” Geithner told me. “And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/geithner-wont-rule-out-new-taxes-for-middle-class.html

There is nothing hard in choosing to raise taxes, which is nothing more than avoiding the real problem an over spending intrusive government.

[petegz28]

There is nothing hard in choosing to raise taxes, which is nothing more than avoiding the real problem an over spending intrusive government.

That is sort of how I see it. Why is cutting spending never a part of paying down deficit plans? Geithner and Co. along with the Obama and the Dems over the last 2 years have continued the ill-fated Bush policies of just spend, spend and spend some more.

Obama's entire cabinet for the most part is full of tax cheats.

[BucEyedPea]

We have to pay the Fed's stimulus and it's interest back.

[banyon]

Oh so what does Geithner have to do with this decision...he determines and makes law now?

:spock:

[BigChiefFan]

That is sort of how I see it. Why is cutting spending never a part of paying down deficit plans? Geithner and Co. along with the Obama and the Dems over the last 2 years have continued the ill-fated Bush policies of just spend, spend and spend some more.

Obama's entire cabinet for the most part is full of tax cheats.

When Geither admittedly didn't pay his taxes and then was appointed as secretary treasury that made things pretty obvious in my book. The elites don't pay their taxes and yet ask us to take a TAX HIKE. Their money grab is sickening.

[wild1]

"Read my lips"

[chiefzilla1501]

Well, I don't have a problem with the gov't spending more right now to fix the economy. They have to. It just seems that the government is trying to fix the problem like a teenager who just got their first credit card. Still, while I don't agree with all the bailout money spending, I understand the rationale.

What pisses me off, though, is that we are now getting to the point where Obama keeps talking about funding expensive programs through raising taxes on a rich group of Americans who are really, really, really good at dodging taxes. He claims that health care, for example, will eventually become budget neutral, but history has shown repeatedly that the government almost never collects nearly as much from the rich as they expect. Many of the rich fall out of the top bracket. Many find ways to divert their income. Almost all of them become far more crafty at dodging taxes in every way.

Consider it another form of "trickle down economics." The government starts with a tax on the top 1%, then realizes that they are billions of dollars short on collections. Once that happens, the government has no choice but to start raising taxes on the middle class.

[BucEyedPea]

Well, I don't have a problem with the gov't spending more right now to fix the economy. They have to.

Why? How does that fix an economy?

[alanm]

Amazing, isn't it? If things don't turn soon Obama will be 1 and done. I think the Dems are already looking at losing seats next year though they may still retain a majority, their "no need for Repubs" mentality will no longer be able to be applied.I read today that a lot of senators and congressmen are hiding from their constituents and not having town hall meetings this month during break. Who'd a thunk it? :shake:

[HonestChieffan]

Ike Skelton is in hiding in MO.

[patteeu]

Amazing, isn't it? If things don't turn soon Obama will be 1 and done. I think the Dems are already looking at losing seats next year though they may still retain a majority, their "no need for Repubs" mentality will no longer be able to be applied.

Oh, and btw, this IS the death knell for the Democrats as well as Obama.
Remember Bush Sr's read my lips: " No new taxes" but then renegged. That ousted him. Then B Clinton pulled in Republicans.
How anyone continues to believe the contenders for president is beyond me.

Good grief, people. The whole political world can turn upside down in 6 months, let alone 3 1/2 years. Obama is in a delightfully tough stretch right now, but the economy is going to rebound in one fashion or another and he and the democrats are going to claim credit even if they don't deserve it. There's plenty of time for Obama to set himself up for re-election and it's just as foolish to talk about a death knell for democrats as it was to talk about a death knell for Republicans last year.

The Republicans will probably cut into the democrat majorities in 2010 without overturning them based on the law of averages alone and the 2012 elections will hinge on events yet to occur, IMO.

[HonestChieffan]

Good grief, people. The whole political world can turn upside down in 6 months, let alone 3 1/2 years. Obama is in a delightfully tough stretch right now, but the economy is going to rebound in one fashion or another and he and the democrats are going to claim credit even if they don't deserve it. There's plenty of time for Obama to set himself up for re-election and it's just as foolish to talk about a death knell for democrats as it was to talk about a death knell for Republicans last year.

The Republicans will probably cut into the democrat majorities in 2010 without overturning them based on the law of averages alone and the 2012 elections will hinge on events yet to occur, IMO.

The Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa his own bad self cannot fix the compounded errors and bad for the economy decisions being made right now.

Couple unemployment with higher taxes-personal and business, a health care proposal that will be a tax setup for generations, Cap and Trade that will lead to reductions in disposable income for every user of energy, and government intervention into more and more business sectors and you have a new "Obama Bubble" called Inflation.

[BucEyedPea]

Good grief, people. The whole political world can turn upside down in 6 months, let alone 3 1/2 years. Obama is in a delightfully tough stretch right now, but the economy is going to rebound in one fashion or another and he and the democrats are going to claim credit even if they don't deserve it. There's plenty of time for Obama to set himself up for re-election and it's just as foolish to talk about a death knell for democrats as it was to talk about a death knell for Republicans last year.
You don't know that yet. As far as I can see, people are pretty pissed a LOT faster than under Bush. Grassroots calls have come in against the HC bill. Any rebound will be mild then bust again—unless the Fed is exposed with its audit. ( could precipitate another panic) Cap n' Trade will drag the economy even more. If we wind up with stagflation, then it's over for him. Could be over now.

Then there's war on the horizon again with polls showing more people against both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama may turn out to be a chickenhawk on Iran too. Rhambo will try to ensure that.

[patteeu]

You don't know that yet. As far as I can see, people are pretty pissed a LOT faster than under Bush. Grassroots calls have come in against the HC bill. Any rebound will be mild then bust again—unless the Fed is exposed with its audit. ( could precipitate another panic) Cap n' Trade will drag the economy even more. If we wind up with stagflation, then it's over for him. Could be over now.

Then there's war on the horizon again with polls showing more people against both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama may turn out to be a chickenhawk on Iran too. Rhambo will try to ensure that.

:rolleyes: The POINT of my post was that neither of us know what's going to happen in the next couple of elections. I didn't claim to know anything except that it's way too early for people to be writing the obituary for Obama's political career or, even more preposterously, the democrat party.

[patteeu]

The Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa his own bad self cannot fix the compounded errors and bad for the economy decisions being made right now.

Couple unemployment with higher taxes-personal and business, a health care proposal that will be a tax setup for generations, Cap and Trade that will lead to reductions in disposable income for every user of energy, and government intervention into more and more business sectors and you have a new "Obama Bubble" called Inflation.

Maybe so, but there WILL be some form of a recovery. It may be after a double dip or it may effectively be a new, less attractive "normal", but it will be something better than economic recession and when it happens, the democrats are going to slap as much lipstick on that pig as they can in an effort to make it look like they've saved us from certain doom. The Republicans will try to make the case that the recovery isn't as good as it should have been if Obama and his policies hadn't gotten in the way, but it remains to be seen if they can convince the public of this. As much damage as I think Obama is doing to our country, I'm not optimistic that the voters will recognize it and make things right at the next election. I hope I'm wrong.

[Donger]

Shocking. Hope. Change. I'm asking you to believe.

[BucEyedPea]

:rolleyes: The POINT of my post was that neither of us know what's going to happen in the next couple of elections. I didn't claim to know anything except that it's way too early for people to be writing the obituary for Obama's political career or, even more preposterously, the democrat party.

One of those deserves two of them.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Probably the rudest smiley here.

[BucEyedPea]

:rolleyes: The POINT of my post was that neither of us know what's going to happen in the next couple of elections. I didn't claim to know anything except that it's way too early for people to be writing the obituary for Obama's political career or, even more preposterously, the democrat party.

I wasn't writing the obituary for his career. Socialists never quit they just keep coming back because they are Fabians.

I was drawing on recent past history when a Fabian goes too far and what the likely results would be. That was my point.
Unfortunately, the infiltration of leftist ideas in the R party doesn't provide much of an alternative except that divided govt has more of a benefit right now.

[banyon]

I wasn't writing the obituary for his career. Socialists never quit they just keep coming back because they are Fabians.

I was drawing on recent past history when a Fabian goes too far and what the likely results would be. That was my point.
Unfortunately, the infiltration of leftist ideas in the R party doesn't provide much of an alternative except that divided govt has more of a benefit right now.

The important thing is that you were able to use a lot of labels against those you disagreed with in this post.

[petegz28]

The important thing is that you were able to use a lot of labels against those you disagreed with in this post.

Do you support tax hikes on the middle class? And do you not agree that should such a thing happen that Obama broke his promies? And do you deny such a broken promise was one of the primary reasons Bush Sr. was not re-elected?

[banyon]

Do you support tax hikes on the middle class? And do you not agree that should such a thing happen that Obama broke his promies? And do you deny such a broken promise was one of the primary reasons Bush Sr. was not re-elected?

Yes, I am against such a hike, but taking Geitner's overly cautious statement as proof that it's going to happen is overblown too.

[petegz28]

Yes, I am against such a hike, but taking Geitner's overly cautious statement as proof that it's going to happen is overblown too.

I don't think anyone is taking it as proof. I think it is, however, a red flag when it is not ruled out.

[patteeu]

Do you support tax hikes on the middle class? And do you not agree that should such a thing happen that Obama broke his promies? And do you deny such a broken promise was one of the primary reasons Bush Sr. was not re-elected?

Bush Sr. had a major problem that Obama doesn't have. His political base was stridently anti-tax while Obama's isn't. Yes it will be a broken promise, but no it won't automatically sink him at the next election. It will be ammunition for Republicans, but it won't be the WMD that it was for GHWBush.

[petegz28]

Bush Sr. had a major problem that Obama doesn't have. His political base was stridently anti-tax while Obama's isn't. Yes it will be a broken promise, but no it won't automatically sink him at the next election. It will be ammunition for Republicans, but it won't be the WMD that it was for GHWBush.

I beg to differ on that one.

[BigChiefFan]

Geither didn't pay taxes and he's the Secretary Treasurer. What a scam.

[patteeu]

I beg to differ on that one.

What part of it and why? :shrug:

[Calcountry]

To get the economy back on track, will President Barack Obama have to break his pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans? In a “This Week” exclusive, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told me, "We’re going to have to do what’s necessary.”

Geithner was clear that he believes a key component of economic recovery is deficit reduction. When I gave him several opportunities to rule out a middle class tax hike, he wouldn’t do it.

“We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically,” Geithner told me. “And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”

“We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we convince the American people that we are going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established,” he said.

While Geithner told me, “There are signs the recession is easing,” he warned that, “We have a ways to go.”

“I want to emphasize the basic reality that unemployment is very high in this country,” the secretary said. But, he underlined that the administration is “going to do what is necessary to bring growth back on track.”

Turning to the bank bailout, he told me it is “quite unlikely” that the U.S. Treasury will go back to Congress to ask for more funding for the financial rescue package.

"We do not plan to ask for more money and I think it’s quite unlikely that we do," Geithner said in his most blunt language to date on TARP funding. The secretary said that today the TARP has roughly $130 billion, in part due to more than $70 billion that has already come back into the government.

Geithner also strongly endorsed legislation currently pending in the House that would increase the power of the SEC and give shareholders more rights to vote on executive compensation. He insisted that Republican criticism that the government is overly involved in the financial system is unfounded.

"Everybody understands that we cannot have our financial system go back to the practices that brought this economy to the brink of collapse," he told me. "It is going to take fundamental reform."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/geithner-wont-rule-out-new-taxes-for-middle-class.html

Puts finger in ring on back of Obama doll and pulls/ "95% of Americans will get a TAX CUT!"

[Calcountry]

My only question is; if we have to bring down these deficits dramatically, why do we keep adding to them on a monthly, if not weekly basis?You CUT spending.

You don't increase cash for clunkers.

[banyon]

You CUT spending.

You don't increase cash for clunkers.

Have you seen what spending cuts during a recession are doing to your local state economy?

You raise taxes and cut spending after the recession. That's the way it is supposed to work. Both sides chicken out though when everything is going well.

[petegz28]

Have you seen what spending cuts during a recession are doing to your local state economy?

You raise taxes and cut spending after the recession. That's the way it is supposed to work. Both sides chicken out though when everything is going well.

How about the Fed Gov just cuts spending, period? Congress lives like royalty on our dime.

[HonestChieffan]

How about the Fed Gov just cuts spending, period? Congress lives like royalty on our dime.

Its the new economics. When things are going poorly, increase taxes on all. The idea is its bad so making it worse wont hurt as much as screwing things up when things are good. To public workers and aid recipients taxes are always good.

[banyon]

How about the Fed Gov just cuts spending, period? Congress lives like royalty on our dime.

There is certainly waste in the Congressional Executive office budget, but if that's where you are going to place your spending cut priority, then you are wasting your time, as it is a tiny percentage of the overall budget and even deficit.

[banyon]

Its the new economics. When things are going poorly, increase taxes on all. The idea is its bad so making it worse wont hurt as much as screwing things up when things are good. To public workers and aid recipients taxes are always good.

I hope you weren't replying to my post with this garbage, as I made it clear that I didn't support tax increases on the middle class now, and to only increase taxes well into an expansion.

[HonestChieffan]

If I was replying to you, why would i quote and reply to Pete? So, no, clearly I was not.

[beer bacon]

I am trying to figure out how the current federal income tax levels compare to what they have been historically. Does anyone know if federal income taxes have ever been higher than they are today?

[petegz28]

I am trying to figure out how the current federal income tax levels compare to what they have been historically. Does anyone know if federal income taxes have ever been higher than they are today?

Sure they have. But raising them in the middle of an economic crisis has never done any good. You want to raise them once things are going good and unemployment comes back down....that makes more sense.

[beer bacon]

Sure they have. But raising them in the middle of an economic crisis has never done any good. You want to raise them once things are going good and unemployment comes back down....that makes more sense.

What happened in 1933 when the federal income tax on the top bracket jumped from 25% to 63%? Was the economy doing great when FDR took office?

*Edit* I was curious so I googled federal income tax and looked up its history on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

[petegz28]

What happened in 1933 when the federal income tax on the top bracket jumped from 25% to 63%? Was the economy doing great when FDR took office?

*Edit* I was curious so I googled federal income tax and looked up its history on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

It took WWII to get the economy going again.

[beer bacon]

It took WWII to get the economy going again.

In 1933 the real GDP shrunk by 1.3%, down from -13% the year before. In 1934 it grew by 11%, than +9% in 35, and +13% in 36.

[beer bacon]

Also, why did the economy grow so fast during WW2? American grit?

[petegz28]

Also, why did the economy grow so fast during WW2? American grit?

War=profits....unfortunately

[beer bacon]

War=profits....unfortunately

Who was doing all the spending during WW2?

[Calcountry]

Also its funny the guy who doesn't pay his taxes is talking about raising taxes. The average American is being screwed folks.this

[petegz28]

Who was doing all the spending during WW2?

The more important question is, who was making all the money?

[beer bacon]

The more important question is, who was making all the money?

This is an interesting question. Who was?

[patteeu]

I am trying to figure out how the current federal income tax levels compare to what they have been historically. Does anyone know if federal income taxes have ever been higher than they are today?

Yes, they have. They were higher in the Jimmy Carter years (70% top rate at the end of his term). Ronald Reagan reduced them over the first 6 years of his Presidency to the low water mark of the modern era (33% top rate which dropped to 28% top marginal rate).

They were even higher, in excess of 90%, before JFK's tax cut.

You can see historical tax rates for yourself, here (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html).

But tax rates aren't the whole story. Pre-Reagan, the tax code had a lot of deductions that people could use to shelter their income from high tax rates, but Reagan's dramatic tax rate reductions were achieved through a grand bargain in which most of these deductions were eliminated. Now tax rates are going back up but the deductions are lagging.

[petegz28]

This is an interesting question. Who was?

The same people who caused the crashes....a few select individual bankers. The Roosevelt's being among them.

[beer bacon]

Yes, they have. They were higher in the Jimmy Carter years (70% top rate at the end of his term). Ronald Reagan reduced them over the first 6 years of his Presidency to the low water mark of the modern era (33% top rate which dropped to 28% top marginal rate).

They were even higher, in excess of 90%, before JFK's tax cut.

You can see historical tax rates for yourself, here (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html).

Thanks for taking the time to gather this information. That is a great link.

[wild1]

Yes, I am against such a hike, but taking Geitner's overly cautious statement as proof that it's going to happen is overblown too.

Could just be a trial balloon.

[wild1]

Yes, they have. They were higher in the Jimmy Carter years (70% top rate at the end of his term). Ronald Reagan reduced them over the first 6 years of his Presidency to the low water mark of the modern era (33% top rate which dropped to 28% top marginal rate).

They were even higher, in excess of 90%, before JFK's tax cut.

You can see historical tax rates for yourself, here (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html).

But tax rates aren't the whole story. Pre-Reagan, the tax code had a lot of deductions that people could use to shelter their income from high tax rates, but Reagan's dramatic tax rate reductions were achieved through a grand bargain in which most of these deductions were eliminated. Now tax rates are going back up but the deductions are lagging.

I shall add to your reputation for this.

[dirk digler]

Good grief, people. The whole political world can turn upside down in 6 months, let alone 3 1/2 years. Obama is in a delightfully tough stretch right now, but the economy is going to rebound in one fashion or another and he and the democrats are going to claim credit even if they don't deserve it. There's plenty of time for Obama to set himself up for re-election and it's just as foolish to talk about a death knell for democrats as it was to talk about a death knell for Republicans last year.

The Republicans will probably cut into the democrat majorities in 2010 without overturning them based on the law of averages alone and the 2012 elections will hinge on events yet to occur, IMO.

Excellent post Pat and totally 100% agree.

I know you hate Obama as do most posters in DC do but reality is that the economy is going to turn around and Obama will get the credit. I have a pretty good idea as well that one of the reasons why they are pushing health care and cap and trade so early on is to get the messy stuff done first and out of the way and when the economy turns around he is a lock for re-election. If it doesn't turn around he is out in 2012.

[beer bacon]

Another question, have the federal income tax brackets kept up with inflation? It seems like the federal income tax brackets have been simplified a lot in the last 30 years. Back in the 50s, the top bracket for an individual was $200,000 and up. Today it is $372,000. The top earners back in the 50s were taxed over 90% (wow) and now it is 35%.

It seems to me that we could use a few more brackets above the $372,000 mark. Something like another bracket at $750,000, and then the highest at somewhere over a million.

Why is there a 10% bump for the earners from the next to lowest to 2nd to lowest tier, but only a 2% from the next to highest to highest tier? Is that a product of Bush's 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut?

[beer bacon]

.

But tax rates aren't the whole story. Pre-Reagan, the tax code had a lot of deductions that people could use to shelter their income from high tax rates, but Reagan's dramatic tax rate reductions were achieved through a grand bargain in which most of these deductions were eliminated. Now tax rates are going back up but the deductions are lagging.

Do you have a link on how the old system and all the deductions? I have heard about this quite a few times, but I have never read up on it.

[BucEyedPea]

It took WWII to get the economy going again.

Complete and total myth. Talk to an aunt or grandparent it sucked. Many, many items were rationed and people were generally poor. I showed pictures of the rationing tickets. The war just removed the unemployed and put them into the military instead causing the unemployment statistics to drop. But that's not really employment that results in production of goods with an exchange the increases prosperity. The economy didn't get going again until after the war when there were dramatic cuts in govt spending afterwards....followed by a boom.

[petegz28]

Complete and total myth. Talk to an aunt or grandparent it sucked. Many, many items were rationed and people were generally poor. I showed pictures of the rationing tickets. The war just removed the unemployed and put them into the military instead causing the unemployment statistics to drop. But that's not really employment that results in production of goods with an exchange the increases prosperity. The economy didn't get going again until after the war when there were dramatic cuts in govt spending afterwards....followed by a boom.

Agreed. I should have clarified that the economy was not great during the war. You are correct.

[beer bacon]

Complete and total myth. Talk to an aunt or grandparent it sucked. Many, many items were rationed and people were generally poor. I showed pictures of the rationing tickets. The war just removed the unemployed and put them into the military instead causing the unemployment statistics to drop. But that's not really employment that results in production of goods with an exchange the increases prosperity. The economy didn't get going again until after the war when there were dramatic cuts in govt spending afterwards....followed by a boom.

The United States real GDP grew by 17% in 1941, 18% in 42, 16% in 43, and 8% in 44.

[banyon]

Agreed. I should have clarified that the economy was not great during the war. You are correct.

No she is not. She already had clown shoes put on her trying to pimp this historical revision as well.


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203599&highlight=WWII

[ROYC75]

Excellent post Pat and totally 100% agree.

I know you hate Obama as do most posters in DC do but reality is that the economy is going to turn around and Obama will get the credit. I have a pretty good idea as well that one of the reasons why they are pushing health care and cap and trade so early on is to get the messy stuff done first and out of the way and when the economy turns around he is a lock for re-election. If it doesn't turn around he is out in 2012.

Bingo, this way things look better in early 2012, He can say, Are you better off now that then?

Problem is , the country will not and we probably will never see the deficit back to being a surplus.

[BucEyedPea]

The United States real GDP grew by 17% in 1941, 18% in 42, 16% in 43, and 8% in 44.

GDP counts government spending as production, when it is really consumption. Subtract government spending from the GDP twice to get the GPP (gross private product) for a better representation of the economy. GDP is also calculated by summing up prices and quantities. LOL Totally worthless while the government implements widespread price fixing and where the govt is spending more during a war. The Soviet Union had beautiful economic statistics right up untill they collapsed.

The people from that time can tell you more with more accuracy too. But check out my post on how unreliable GDP is in general. It's a Keynesian statistic that measures consumption not prosperity or real wealth.

If you want to concoct a real GDP for this that didn't rebound until after the war. Sorry but it's true. Myths die hard.

[beer bacon]

GDP counts government spending as production, when it is really consumption. Subtract government spending from the GDP twice to get the GPP (gross private product) for a better representation of the economy. GDP is also calculated by summing up prices and quantities. LOL Totally worthless while the government implements widespread price fixing.The Soviet Union had beautiful economic statistics right up untill they collapsed.

The people from that time can tell you more with more accuracy too. But check out my post on how unreliable GDP is in general. It's a Keynesian statistic that measures consumption not prosperity or real wealth.

Sorry but it's true.

Oh for fuck's sake.

[beer bacon]

GDP counts government spending as production, when it is really consumption. Subtract government spending from the GDP twice to get the GPP (gross private product) for a better representation of the economy. GDP is also calculated by summing up prices and quantities. LOL Totally worthless while the government implements widespread price fixing and where the govt is spending is more a part of that during war. The Soviet Union had beautiful economic statistics right up untill they collapsed.

The people from that time can tell you more with more accuracy too. But check out my post on how unreliable GDP is in general. It's a Keynesian statistic that measures consumption not prosperity or real wealth.

If you want to concoct a real GDP for this that didn't rebound until after the war. Sorry but it's true. Myths die hard.

Hehe, look at this excellent system pulled out of someone's ass so we can ignore all the date that invalidates the bullshit we have bought into.

I am probably going to regret this, but BucEyed, can you please explain what brought our economy out of the depression since all that government spending in the 1930s and 40s was just plain ol' cheating that doesn't count?

[BucEyedPea]

Hehe, look at this excellent system pulled out of someone's ass so we can ignore all the date that invalidates the bullshit we have bought into.

I am probably going to regret this, but BucEyed, can you please explain what brought our economy out of the depression since all that government spending in the 1930s and 40s was just plain ol' cheating that doesn't count?
I just told you it was massive cuts in govt spending. To keep it brief.

I posted it at length before several times. Use the search. I even said I posted pictures of rationing tickets. It was me an Johnny V in one of them.

GDP is an arbitrary set by someone and it also gets manipulated by politicians. People were poor during the war. They were not prosperous in general. Rubber, nylons, butter and other items had to be rationed.

[BucEyedPea]

I did find my other post on GDP. ( Now I'm going to eat.)


Here's my problem with GDP statistics.
It is created and based on the idea that an economy is not the production of wealth but rather its consumption. Consumer demand is the largest share of overall demand so it is alleged that this demand fuels economic growth alone.

It's not reality because it's only final goods and services nothing in the interim count. Govt statisticians solidify this fantasy. The GDP framework does not tell us if there is real wealth expansion as opposed to consumption, is based on national output which does not provide the specific information a business needs and is just an abstraction.

All GDP is needed for is predicting the response of the central bank's monetary policies since it tampers with business. Such monetary pumping does not generate more prosperity, "but rather sets in motion a "stronger GDP" and the consequent menace of the boom-bust cycle—i.e., economic impoverishment." -Frank Shostak, Ph.D and chief economist of M.F. Global.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=211141&page=3

[banyon]

I did find my other post on GDP. ( Now I'm going to eat.)




http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=211141&page=3

Here's my problem with your problem with GDP:

You offer no useful alternative, just idealistic complaints. Should we utilize chicken bones?

Until a useful alternative emerges, then the statistic that 95% of people use to measure economic output is going to remain (outside of some tiny circles) the standard. It's useful to know its limitations, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not practical.

[banyon]

If I was replying to you, why would i quote and reply to Pete? So, no, clearly I was not.

Because pete was replying to me and he didn't say it either. I was assuming you were replying or making that point to someone, but perhaps you were so disoriented, you didn't know who you were addressing.

[BucEyedPea]

Beer Bacon govt spending was halved after WWII.

BTW this phenomena of war causing economic recovery is called " The Broken Winndow" fallacy.
War destroys economies. Only certain industries benefit. The economies of Europe involved in war were destroyed.

[banyon]

Beer Bacon govt spending was halved after WWII.

That actually augments and doesn't detract from Keynesian stimulus theory.

Keynes advocated reducing the government spending after the economy regained its strength and was able to expand on its own again. The problem of the Depression that was solved by stimulus was that there was a stagnating spiral of reduced demand for good and services that kept leading to more and more layoffs and then less consumer spending. It's tough to generate consumer confidence in that atmosphere, but if things are going well, then the reduced spending doesn't detrimentally impact consumer spending on the way up the way increased spending does at the bottom.

[banyon]

WHY WONT OBAMA GUARANTEE HE WON'T RAISE TAXES HE IS TEH DEBIL111!!!COPTER

Gibbs: Obama Won't Raise Middle-Class Taxes

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/03/gibbs_obama_wont_raise_middle-.html?wprss=44

By Michael A. Fletcher
If two of President Obama's top economic advisers cracked open the door to the possibility middle-class tax increases Sunday, the White House slammed it shut on Monday.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama will not raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year, even as the nation's budget deficit has surged beyond $1 trillion, a problem that policy makers agree has to eventually be wrestled under control to ensure future economic growth.

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised not to raise taxes on middle class Americans -- and he intends to keep that pledge, Gibbs said. "The president's clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year," he said.

Speaking at his daily news briefing, Gibbs responded to remarks made by top economic adviser Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, both of whom seemed to leave open the possibility of middle-class tax increases to bring the deficit under control.

Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" whether taxes could be raised for middle-income Americans, Summers was non-committal. "There is a lot that can happen over time," he said. "It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what."

Geithner, in an interview on ABC's "This Week" program, said restructuring the U.S. health-care system is not enough to rein in the budget deficit under control, and he said tax increases could be necessary. "We can't make these judgments yet about exactly what it's going to take and how we're going to get there," Geithner said.

Gibbs said Obama swiftly put such politically volatile talk to rest during a meeting with his top economic advisers on Monday. He said the president reiterated his commitment to not raising taxes on middle-class Americans, a promise rooted in his belief that the only group of people on average to prosper economically in the past eight years were the nation's top 5 percent of income earners, while the nation's median income flat lined.

Still, the remarks from Obama's top economic advisers drew a sharp rebuke from some Republicans. "Despite the Obama campaign rhetoric, it appears that the White House may do the last thing an economy in recession should do -- increase taxes on middle-income families -- to dig itself out of the hole it's made," said Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

With health care costs rising far faster than inflation, the federal deficit is largely being driven by the growing costs of Medicare and Medicaid. But some of Obama's initiatives -- including efforts to make renewable energy profitable, to bolster education, and to remake the health care system in a way that will eventually control costs while extending coverage -- promise to put even more pressure on the deficit.

"I think the president has backed himself into a corner here," said Marc Goldwein, policy director of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "He wants big spending on health care, energy and education. And you can't get that from taxing only the top 5 percent of income earners. That makes it difficult to do tax policy."

While Obama has promised that health care reform could in the long run result in big budget savings, Goldwein said that significant new revenue is also going to be needed to shrink the deficit.

"If the president cares about the deficit and wants to make it a priority, he has to make a major budget deal at some point," he said. "On the table has to be Social Security, health reform, budget cuts and revenue. And it is going to very difficult to get that revenue from just the top sliver of the income scale."

Staff Writer Scott Wilson contributed to this report.

[patteeu]

Do you have a link on how the old system and all the deductions? I have heard about this quite a few times, but I have never read up on it.

I don't have a link, but I can give you a book recommendation. Showdown at Gucci Gulch (http://www.amazon.com/Showdown-Gucci-Gulch-Alan-Murray/dp/0394758110) is the story about how the 1986 Tax Reform came to be despite the opposition from the Gucci-clad lobbyists of those with vested interests in maintaining the tax status quo. A couple of WSJ reporters (at the time), Jeffery Birnbaum and Alan Murray, wrote it.

[mlyonsd]

If anyone believes our spending can be made solvent by only taxing the rich or creating 4 million new long term jobs (total f'ing myth btw) they're either stupid by nature or stupid drunk.

[patteeu]

Excellent post Pat and totally 100% agree.

I know you hate Obama as do most posters in DC do but reality is that the economy is going to turn around and Obama will get the credit. I have a pretty good idea as well that one of the reasons why they are pushing health care and cap and trade so early on is to get the messy stuff done first and out of the way and when the economy turns around he is a lock for re-election. If it doesn't turn around he is out in 2012.

The economy will turn around to one degree or another, but it remains to be seen how much credit Obama will get. If the economy returns to a high rate of growth and near-full employment, he stands to fare very well (whether his policies are the cause or not). If it returns, but only to an anemic rate of growth and a higher persistent rate of unemployment or if inflation and interest rates go way up, he could still have problems.

It sounds like we might be pretty close to agreement here.

[RedNeckRaider]

If anyone believes our spending can be made solvent by only taxing the rich or creating 4 million new long term jobs (total f'ing myth btw) they're either stupid by nature or stupid drunk.

Less your choice in football teams we think much alike

[banyon]

If anyone believes our spending can be made solvent by only taxing the rich or creating 4 million new long term jobs (total f'ing myth btw) they're either stupid by nature or stupid drunk.

only? No.

[patteeu]

WHY WONT OBAMA GUARANTEE HE WON'T RAISE TAXES HE IS TEH DEBIL111!!!COPTER

Gibbs: Obama Won't Raise Middle-Class Taxes

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/03/gibbs_obama_wont_raise_middle-.html?wprss=44

By Michael A. Fletcher
If two of President Obama's top economic advisers cracked open the door to the possibility middle-class tax increases Sunday, the White House slammed it shut on Monday.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama will not raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year, even as the nation's budget deficit has surged beyond $1 trillion, a problem that policy makers agree has to eventually be wrestled under control to ensure future economic growth.

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised not to raise taxes on middle class Americans -- and he intends to keep that pledge, Gibbs said. "The president's clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year," he said.

...

Translation: Obama won't increase tax RATES for the individual income tax, payroll tax, or capital gains tax for individuals earning less than the specified amount. HOWEVER, he will consider raising all kinds of other taxes on these people and he will almost certainly raise taxes on their employers that will inevitably trickle down to them (e.g. Cap and Trade, elimination of health care deduction for employers, etc.). FURTHERMORE, he reserves the right to eliminate or reduce deductions that these individuals currently take advantage of to reduce their overall tax liability. All this, despite having promised during the election to avoid raising taxes "OF ANY KIND" on this group. A promise that he's already broken by raising the excise tax on cigarettes.

I don't see how anyone can take Gibbs statement from today seriously.

[mlyonsd]

only? No.

Until we start protecting our workers/manufacturers from this global economy lunacy we're heading for third world.

[mlyonsd]

Less your choice in football teams we think much alike

Are you the guy at Arrowhead flying a raider (note I can't capitalize it) flag?

If so I shook your hand once walking into the stadium.

And btw, F the pukes in gay sliver. :D Your team looks like a drunk Mardi Gras parade Krew.

[banyon]

Until we start protecting our workers/manufacturers from this global economy lunacy we're heading for third world.

Well, I guess I'd have to agree with this statement in its entirety. Dang, and I was ready for some big time throwdown.

[banyon]

Translation: Obama won't increase tax RATES for the individual income tax, payroll tax, or capital gains tax for individuals earning less than the specified amount. HOWEVER, he will consider raising all kinds of other taxes on these people and he will almost certainly raise taxes on their employers that will inevitably trickle down to them (e.g. Cap and Trade, elimination of health care deduction for employers, etc.). FURTHERMORE, he reserves the right to eliminate or reduce deductions that these individuals currently take advantage of to reduce their overall tax liability. All this, despite having promised during the election to avoid raising taxes "OF ANY KIND" on this group. A promise that he's already broken by raising the excise tax on cigarettes.

I don't see how anyone can take Gibbs statement from today seriously.

Cigarette taxes? Yeah, it's not like he was speaking about income taxes or something.

In any event, as I have observed smoking ban after smoking ban pass all around me, it seems like that's a very motivated demographic that you'll want as an ally to try to beat Obama in 012'.

[RedNeckRaider]

Are you the guy at Arrowhead flying a raider (note I can't capitalize it) flag?

If so I shook your hand once walking into the stadium.

And btw, F the pukes in gay sliver. :D Your team looks like a drunk Mardi Gras parade Krew.

No I have tailgated at B-5 a couple times. There is a photo floating around here of my son and I with DartGod,stevieray,KCDan, shakesthecat and a few others. I do not dress up I was wearing the same type clothing I always wear with a signed Kenny Stabler atographed jersey

[mlyonsd]

Well, I guess I'd have to agree with this statement in its entirety. Dang, and I was ready for some big time throwdown.

People think I'm some in the pocket republican but I'm not. I'm a realist that knows the truth is somewhere not even in the middle anymore.

That being said I'm part of the original problem. Back in the early 80's when I finished college I couldn't believe a line worker in Flynt or Detroit could make more money than me and have better benefits. I opposed unions because of that. Hindsight being 20/20 I now understand that it was a mistake. Not only from a union POV but lower level manufacturing POV. You can't keep a population of 300 million working when you let cheap foreign labor undermine them.

Bleh, I'm ranting but our new president and a two year old congress don't address the real problem. Instead they just spend more money, yet to be printed, proving they don't understand the real issue.

[mlyonsd]

No I have tailgated at B-5 a couple times. There is a photo floating around here of my son and I with DartGod,stevieray,KCDan, shakesthecat and a few others. I do not dress up I was wearing the same type clothing I always wear with a signed Kenny Stabler atographed jersey

Aight. In that case I'll just say for raider (note I didn't capitlize it) fan you seem to be my kind of beer drinking bud. Although if we were at Arrowhead I might pee in your raidator.

j/k

[patteeu]

Cigarette taxes? Yeas, it's not like he was speaking about income taxes or something.

In any event, as I have observed smoking ban after smoking ban pass all around me, it seems like that's a very motivated demographic that you'll want as an ally to try to beat Obama in 012'.

You're the same banyon who gives me trouble if I describe someone who doesn't pay income tax as a "non-taxpayer" aren't you?

But Obama was clear during the campaign. He went out of his way to dispel the notion that he was narrowly talking only about the income tax:

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." - Barack Obama (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/)

[RedNeckRaider]

People think I'm some in the pocket republican but I'm not. I'm a realist that knows the truth is somewhere not even in the middle anymore.

That being said I'm part of the original problem. Back in the early 80's when I finished college I couldn't believe a line worker in Flynt or Detroit could make more money than me and have better benefits. I opposed unions because of that. Hindsight being 20/20 I now understand that it was a mistake. Not only from a union POV but lower level manufacturing POV. You can't keep a population of 300 million working when you let cheap foreign labor undermine them.

Bleh, I'm ranting but our new president and a two year old congress don't address the real problem. Instead they just spend more money, yet to be printed, proving they don't understand the real issue.

Hence the fact the left and the right are doing nothing about the illegals and green cards for that matter. These people are no longer doing the jobs Americans will not do. A green card affords you the right to work in this country, well guess what we are out of jobs now time to go home. As far as the illegals you are criminals and it is time to go to jail and then home.

[banyon]

You're the same banyon who gives me trouble if I describe someone who doesn't pay income tax as a "non-taxpayer" aren't you?

LOL, you got me pretty good there.

But Obama was clear during the campaign. He went out of his way to dispel the notion that he was narrowly talking only about the income tax:

got an in-context quote where he said something that could clearly include cig taxes?

[banyon]

Hence the fact the left and the right are doing nothing about the illegals and green cards for that matter. These people are no longer doing the jobs Americans will not do. A green card affords you the right to work in this country, well guess what we are out of jobs now time to go home. As far as the illegals you are criminals and it is time to go to jail and then home.

I reflected on this today when I talked with someone in India about my credit report. It's way past time for paying some attention to our production base and workers.

[patteeu]

got an in-context quote where he said something that could clearly include cig taxes?

"[A]ny form of tax increase" seems pretty comprehensive to me. Is there context that you know of that turns that phrase on it's head?

[banyon]

"[A]ny form of tax increase" seems pretty comprehensive to me. Is there context that you know of that turns that phrase on it's head?

Well since that quote was without any context whatsoever, I don't really know.

[patteeu]

Well since that quote was without any context whatsoever, I don't really know.

I can't find a full transcript of his comments, but I found a little more context for you that clearly incorporates corporate taxes into the comment (which was disingenuous wrt John McCain's position, btw):

"[McCain's] plan gives absolutely nothing to about 100 million American households. I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

"And my opponent can't make that pledge, and here's why. For the first time in American history, John McCain wants to tax your health-care benefits. Apparently, Senator McCain doesn't think it's enough that health care premiums have doubled, he thinks that you should have to pay taxes on them, too. That's a $3.6 trillion tax increase potentially on middle-class families. And that would eventually leave tens of millions of you paying higher taxes or losing your benefits. That's his idea of change." - Senator Barack Obama in Dover, N.H., September 12 (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/12/palin-entitlement/#comment-5225740)

Note that McCain's plan wouldn't have increased any personal taxation (income, payroll, or capital gains) on employees. In fact, McCain's plan included a large tax credit for individuals. Instead, it would have increased taxation on employers (I'd be the first to admit that this *does* impact employees indirectly, but that only serves to broaden Obama's pledge). Obama doesn't explicitly swear off cigarette taxes here, but his statement is unequivocal and I think the fair way to read it, at least until context to the contrary is found, is that any tax increase that impacts these families is in direct contradiction to his "firm pledge".