Imagine that. More millionaires who understand reality as Buffet, Gates and Bogle have for so long. Reality of the horrendous damage the Bush tax cuts did and continue doing to this country. <Insert here> the previous discussions about how the tax cuts have not benefited the economy in any way - jobs or otherwise, and in fact have hurt the economy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101119/ts_yblog_theticket/millionaires-to-obama-tax-us
Provide a line on the tax form for "additional governmental donation" and be done with it...
The Treasury says that extending the Bush tax cuts would cost $3.7 trillion over ten years. Which would be better, giving the wealthiest more money or lowering the National Debt?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 19, 2010, 08:10:47 PM
The Treasury says that extending the Bush tax cuts would cost $3.7 trillion over ten years. Which would be better, giving the wealthiest more money or lowering the National Debt?
I do not care about tax cuts for the rich, just lower mine, and mine alone. :o
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 19, 2010, 08:10:47 PM
The Treasury says that extending the Bush tax cuts would cost $3.7 trillion over ten years. Which would be better, giving the wealthiest more money or lowering the National Debt?
Cut spending by $370 bln per year and it will be a wash. Did they not teach simple math to the eggheads in D.C.?
Honestly, I think it amounts to a 3% increase. I really could care less since I'm relatively unaffected by it, but I get incredibly pissed off when people make extending tax cuts sound like a hand out to rich people because libs keep mischaracterizing what this is. It's not GIVING anyone money. It's allowing people to keep more of the money they EARNED. Something the entitlement slaves libs pander to can't possibly understand so that's why they keep playing on class warfare trying to create resentment where it doesn't belong. We need to be angry that the government keeps consuming more and more money, not angry that people would like to be able to keep more of the fruits of their productivity.
So long as the money is available, it will be spent. The idea it will be used for debt reduction is a fantasy, RM.
And, FWIW, they have simply talked about extending the cuts for two years, not ten.
These were sold to the American public that they would stimulate the economy. Give the richest 3% more money and they will create jobs and make rainbows.
Guess what? It didn't happen. The richest just got richer. That is all.
I would rather lower the national debt than to extend tax breaks to a gategory of rich that 98% of all Americans will never see. But I guess you conservatives never really did care about the national debt.
The difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats embrace taxes to pay for their programs, the republicans just make their kids pay for their spending.
Class traitor and gazillionaire Warren Buffet had an interesting interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/warren-buffett-paying-more-taxes_n_786516.html) with Christianne Amanpour this weekend in which he essentially stated the obvious: that the rich have never had it so good (though I take issue with that from an historical standpoint); and that they should most definitely be taxed more. Another interesting snippet:
Quote"When Amanpour pointed to critics' claims that the very wealthy need tax cuts to spur business and capitalism, Buffett replied, "The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money, and we'll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."
Also: Warren Buffet in praise of the Federal Gov's response to the crash. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=1)
Brutally raise corporate taxes either as a net rate increase or eliminate accounting gimmicks like depreciation & amortization and cut off tax write-offs for luxury corporate retreats, complany cars, aircraft, etc. and see how bad Buffet, Gates, et al scream. People like these spend massive amounts of money on tax avoidance and their corporate empires depend on tax breaks to hire people and make a profit.
If Microsoft or Geico were to look at Tulsa for a new 4000 employee center, they would want property tax breaks, quality jobs credits, and all sorts of write-offs on the physical plant. In fact, they wouldn't expand to Tulsa or Pocatello if there were no tax breaks of some sort to help fund expansion.
It's laughable when people point to two of the wealthiest people in the world saying taxes need to be raised. It's disingenuous for Warren Buffet to make it sound as if people earning over $250k are getting some sort of special gift with the Bush tax cuts. Buffet's entire business empire relies on these "gifts" every day.
The Bush tax cut expiration is nothing but a class envy/warfare meme.
Raise the rate by 3% and people will find clever ways to avoid paying it.
Quote from: we vs us on November 22, 2010, 07:22:44 AM
Class traitor and gazillionaire Warren Buffet had an interesting interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/warren-buffett-paying-more-taxes_n_786516.html) with Christianne Amanpour this weekend in which he essentially stated the obvious: that the rich have never had it so good (though I take issue with that from an historical standpoint); and that they should most definitely be taxed more. Another interesting snippet:
Also: Warren Buffet in praise of the Federal Gov's response to the crash. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=1)
Perhaps Mr. Buffet understands that the status quo is unsustainable and that the best shot we have at protecting the upper class is to moderate our tax policy.
Quote from: Hometown on November 22, 2010, 09:07:52 AM
Perhaps Mr. Buffet understands that the status quo is unsustainable and that the best shot we have at protecting the upper class is to moderate our tax policy.
I think Conan is channeling Gweed today.
;D
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/the-billionaires-want-mor_b_786192.html
"The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent nearly tripled since the mid-1970s. Not enough! Eighty percent of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent."
"In the next month, despite all their loud rhetoric about the "deficit crisis," the Republicans want to add $700 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years by extending Bush's tax breaks for the top 2 percent. Families who earn $1 million a year or more would receive, on average, a tax break of $100,000 a year."
"The Republicans also want to eliminate or significantly reduce the estate tax, which has existed since 1916. Its elimination would add, over 10 years, about $1 trillion to our national debt and all of the benefits would go to the top 0.3 percent. Over 99.7 percent of American families would not gain a nickel. The Walton family of WalMart would receive an estimated tax break of more than $30 billion by repealing the estate tax."
How anyone can campaign for tax increases for anyone is beyond me. Reading Huff and Kos this morning, it seems like the fringe is still on a track of self flagellation.
Far be it from me to diminish an enemy's drive towards defeat.
Carry on. :)
(http://reason.com/assets/mc/jtaylor/paynepelosi.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on November 22, 2010, 09:48:35 AM
How anyone can campaign for tax increases for anyone is beyond me. Reading Huff and Kos this morning, it seems like the fringe is still on a track of self flagellation.
Far be it from me to diminish an enemy's drive towards defeat.
Carry on. :)
(http://reason.com/assets/mc/jtaylor/paynepelosi.jpg)
Next year I bet the dems will be saying that about the fractured Republican party. It's not like the writing isn't already on the wall for that to happen.
Former President Bush proposed tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that would expire in 2010 saying that they would stimulate the economy. They didn't.
Stop calling it a tax increase. It was a coupon for the very rich. Now when they pay the same as before doesn't mean the price went up.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 22, 2010, 09:32:16 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/the-billionaires-want-mor_b_786192.html
"The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent nearly tripled since the mid-1970s. Not enough! Eighty percent of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent."
"In the next month, despite all their loud rhetoric about the "deficit crisis," the Republicans want to add $700 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years by extending Bush's tax breaks for the top 2 percent. Families who earn $1 million a year or more would receive, on average, a tax break of $100,000 a year."
"The Republicans also want to eliminate or significantly reduce the estate tax, which has existed since 1916. Its elimination would add, over 10 years, about $1 trillion to our national debt and all of the benefits would go to the top 0.3 percent. Over 99.7 percent of American families would not gain a nickel. The Walton family of WalMart would receive an estimated tax break of more than $30 billion by repealing the estate tax."
You are all over the place. Is it $3.7 trillion or $700 billion extending the cuts would cost?
Your sources are incredibly suspect and only serve to pour fuel on the fire of class envy and nothing more. I don't see how the Waltons would recieve a tax break on estate taxes since virtually all their wealth is held in trusts.
Quit reading the moonbat blogs and think for yourself on this.
There were most definitely jobs created during the Bush years, whether or not his tax cuts were responsible are anyones guess since people hire people, taxes and tax cuts cannot physically hire anyone. Small business owners say tax cuts create jobs. Much as we don't really know how many jobs were saved over the last three years with those cuts being in place. It's sort of like the creative mathmatics of jobs "saved or created" the Obama Admin was using.
Looking at this simply from a consumption stand-point, not the economic gymnastics of tax cuts translating to wealthy people hiring other people: I think we all agree extra money flowing in the economy helps create jobs, yes? So do you allow the wealthiest consumers to keep consuming, or confiscate money from them to repay debt during an economic crisis? Getting more people onto payroll and increasing production will necessarily increase overall tax revenue. That much is indisputable.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 22, 2010, 09:32:16 AM
The Walton family of WalMart would receive an estimated tax break of more than $30 billion by repealing the estate tax."
I find that highly difficult to believe. They have some good estate planners at their disposal.
I agree in principle, but have to quibble with that detail.
Tax cuts right now are a dumb idea. There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts had any economic effect. They certainly won't "pay for themselves." I think at this point the plan of the Republicans is to do what they can to screw the country up and blame it all on Obama. I'm not quite sure why Obama seems to be playing into their hands, what with the backtracking on the Bush extensions.
I think a good compromise would be to extend the middle class cuts starting now and make the tax cuts for higher earners contingent on an improved federal budget outlook and economic numbers. Pay for performance, just like the private sector.
Why? Because allowing the tax cuts to expire on the lower income families will depress spending nearly dollar for dollar. The higher-income folks don't give us the same bang for the buck. If we're going to be frugal, we should be frugal, not complain about the deficit while working to make it worse.
Gaspar, is there a reason why you continue to insist on making inapt comparisons? When JFK made that speech, the top marginal tax rate was
92%. There is simply no evidence that the Laffer Curve applies when the top marginal rates are where they are today. In fact, the Bush cuts provide a great counterexample. Even the much ballyhooed Reagan cuts didn't have any real effect on GDP growth.
When the top marginal rate is over 50%, there is evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth and thus end up enhancing revenue. It's not terribly clear that it's the tax cuts, but there was an apparent causal relationship. Below that, such results haven't been forthcoming. Protestation to the contrary stems from the trickle-down theory's adherents ignoring the order of events. So you're either promoting insanity (using the "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result" definition) or you're not being honest about your position.
You'll note that the economy did just fine in the 90s with a top marginal rate of 39.6%, while it was stagnant during Bush the elder's term with a top marginal rate of 28% (with a "hump" at 33%). There is no there there.
It all comes back to spending. Yes, tax cuts stimulate GDP growth and employment, and yes they also increase initial debt. Tax cuts work, but they are not a panacea. Bush's problem was that for every dollar in revenue generated by increased GDP he, and congress, were spending about $1.20. Our spending outpaced our income.
GDP Revenue
2002 10642.3 1853.40
2003 11142.1 1782.53
2004 11867.8 1880.28
2005 12638.4 2153.86
2006 13398.9 2407.25
2007 14077.6 2568.00
2008 14441.4 2524.00
2009 14258.2 2105.00
GDP Spending
2002 10642.3 2011.15
2003 11142.1 2160.12
2004 11867.8 2293.01
2005 12638.4 2472.20
2006 13398.9 2655.44
2007 14077.6 2728.94
2008 14441.4 2931.22
2009 14258.2 3107.36
Unfortunately this administration choose not take action on the economy. Instead they opted to use it as a platform for the passage of programs they had long drempt of passing. The problem was prolonged, and now it passes to the monetary regulation phase. We took a big hit. A big unnecessary hit. We can claw our way back, but I doubt we will be stupid enough to place our faith in Hopey Changy rhetoric again. The choices we should have made a year ago, we have to go back and make again.
At least we can say we tried it the Keynesian way. :(
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 22, 2010, 10:04:21 AM
Former President Bush proposed tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that would expire in 2010 saying that they would stimulate the economy. They didn't.
Stop calling it a tax increase. It was a coupon for the very rich. Now when they pay the same as before doesn't mean the price went up.
Citing complete leftist sites: employment grew by 5.3 million jobs and the GDP by 41% until the cataclysm in 2008. What is even more laughable is the liberal blogs were highly critical of 308,000 jobs being created in a month. Beats the Hell out of the attaboys they give Obama for maintaining unemployment at 9.5%, now that's something to crow about. That cataclysm had far more to do with the malfeasance of banks, not tax cuts, not general economic policies of the Bush Admin. It had to do with a lack of oversight and fully understanding what the folks on Wall Street were up to.
"Under President Bush, unemployment has generally remained at a little bit under 5 percent, starting at 4.7 percent in 2001 and finishing 2007 at 4.6 percent, though it did rise to 6.0 percent in 2003. Under President Hoover, employment fell by 8 million jobs, while under President Bush employment fell by 1.8 million jobs between 2001 and 2003, then rebounded through the end of 2007, and created a total of 5.3 million jobs."
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that the economy gained 308,000 jobs in March 2004, a gain of 0.24 percent."
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/04/b43958.html
"Well, looks like Bushie has led us into a recession. That is pretty tough to do - just doing nothing usually will result in 1-2 percent growth.
By comparison, let's look at the real growth of GDP under Clinton and Bush. This is the best measure of the growth of the U.S. economy.
The actual figures are available at the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Here are the GDP figures in current dollars:
End of 1992 - $6.5 trillion
End of 2000 - $10.0 trillion
End of 2007 - $14.1 trillion
So under Clinton, GDP grew by $3.5 trillion and under Bush in 6 years it has grown by $4.1 trillion.
However, the percentage growth shows that GDP growth was much faster under Clinton. The economy grew by 53.8 percent [(10.0-6.5)/6.5] under Clinton versus 41 percent [(14.1-10/0)/10.0] under Bush.
http://robsobs.blogspot.com/2008/03/us-gdp-growth.html
I guess 5.3 mm new jobs and GDP growth of 41% doesn't fit your paradigm.
Quote from: nathanm on November 22, 2010, 10:11:30 AM
I think at this point the plan of the Republicans is to do what they can to screw the country up and blame it all on Obama. I'm not quite sure why Obama seems to be playing into their hands, what with the backtracking on the Bush extensions.
Isn't that pretty much what President Obama and the Democrats did the last two years and blame it all on Bush? Honestly it's the ruling class plundering the country for it's own benefit and using the two party system to pass blame back and forth publicly while they share in enjoying the spoils of power.
I think you and I pretty much agree on the tax cut issues up to the point that you don't see direct evidence of tax cuts having a causal relationship to economic growth. We know historically there has been growth simultaneous to tax cuts. You can either draw the conclusion the growth was the result of cuts or simply a coincidence. I happen to believe the cuts made a difference. In light of the credit crisis, the fiscal policy of the Fed, and the perception of an Administration and Congress passing many new initiatives considered anti-business, there's been no other real incentive to create jobs the last two years.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 22, 2010, 10:24:14 AM
"Under President Bush, unemployment has generally remained at a little bit under 5 percent, starting at 4.7 percent in 2001 and finishing 2007 at 4.6 percent, though it did rise to 6.0 percent in 2003. Under President Hoover, employment fell by 8 million jobs, while under President Bush employment fell by 1.8 million jobs between 2001 and 2003, then rebounded through the end of 2007, and created a total of 5.3 million jobs."
It rebounded due to a debt bubble, not due to anything of the Government's doing. Similar to Reagan, and the latter part of the Clinton administration, actually. Compare commercial paper outstanding to the unemployment rate. As the amount of commercial debt was declining in the early '00s, the unemployment rate rose. When commercial borrowing turned around in 2004, the unemployment rate fell.
In essence, the numbers show that the business cycle itself is what matters and tax policy is useless in our current tax rate environment.
FRED produces nice graphs that make this stuff easy to understand:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/
Real GDP growth fell beginning in the 2004. The facts are that the Bush tax cuts did nothing for the economy. Period.
(http://media.share.ovi.com/m1/s/2590/e4218b0d18014e5b82e0aa1432d3af7b.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on November 22, 2010, 10:47:45 AM
Real GDP growth fell beginning in the 2004. The facts are that the Bush tax cuts did nothing for the economy. Period.
From a consumption-based standpoint, you can't say that the tax cuts have done nothing for the economy. If anything, it gave some of the largest consumers more money to pump back into the economy by buying a larger house, luxury car, spending it on travel, home furnishings, electronics, etc. ad nauseum. They also saved, made passive investments, and direct investments in business. As far as a relationship to direct job growth, the amount of difference they made is simply debatable. How much worse shape could the economy be in if the wealthier segment had had less money ($100,000 per year based on the worst of meme's) to spend?
It's pretty hard to track what ifs like how many jobs have been saved. The only real stats you can compile on how many are created or lost. With GDP you can only track loss or gain, you can't really track how much more could have been lost without certain tax breaks.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 22, 2010, 11:10:27 AM
From a consumption-based standpoint, you can't say that the tax cuts have done nothing for the economy.
We can what if all day long. Intuitively, I would expect that tax cuts in an environment where people are spending rather than saving would tend to increase consumption somewhat. That gut feeling is unsupported by facts, unfortunately.
Conan, we now have 10 years of proof showing that is a crock of crap spewed by the Murdochian Warping Machine.
Nathan,
Kind of wrong - Bush tax cuts did plenty for the economy. Took us from a $250 billion surplus per year to a $250 billion deficit.
And gave the rich an even bigger break compared to us than they enjoyed before.
I would just like to see some of those rich get back up to at least 1/2 of the tax rate as a percentage that I am stuck with. Yeah, that's "class warfare" and I want the class warfare they have been waging on us to stop, or at least slow down some.
Just like Buffet has been saying for YEARS!
I'm always interested in the "class warfare" argument, in that when conservatives use it, it usually assumes a very specific direction of said warfare; ie. of the poor against the rich. I'm not sure why conservatives can't conceive of it running the other direction.
There's incontrovertible evidence that the richest Americans control an increasing amount of the economic pie. Here's an excellent chart from an excellent series in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026) on wealth inequality in the US:
(http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266033/100902_GD_Part1_PikettySaez-fig1.gif)
If the trickle down theory actually functioned, you'd see a much gentler upslope, as the resources given back to the top 10% were plowed back into the economy and trickled down to the lower 90% of the economy. Alas, that's not what has happened.
Instead, "from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes . . ."
So: the rich got waaaaay richer and the rest of us have stagnated (and FYI I appreciate your individual stories of success over the last decade or so; sadly you're running against the statistical norm). While it's taken the Great Recession to uncover that fact, it's a dynamic that's been in effect for nearly a quarter century. In essence, if this information proves anything it's that there is no such thing as trickle down. There is no compelling economic reason to "give" the top tier of earners more resources in the hopes that they will help (through employment) the rest of us. They already control a quarter of it and the rest of us are no richer for it. We are actually arguably poorer.
I'm not particularly "jealous," of that kind of unimaginable wealth (I don't have a good concept of how rich most of these folks actually are), though I am fearful that, as in any lopsided system, as they come to monopolize more and more of our wealth 1) they will continue to be untouchable, as their advocates in the GOP firewall them off from criticism/further taxation and 2) the government will begin a gradual but massive drawdown of our social services because they won't be able to fund them.
I think trickle down means tinkle on.
My response to trickle down has always been;
"Don't piss down my back and try to tell me it's raining!"
Why is there never a reasoned, thought out response to the facts of the tax disparity in this country? The RWRE has none. It knows the situation is grotesquely unfair, and talking about the reality is always dodged, and the extremely worn out tired old hack of "cut taxes" is the only phrase that is ever heard from that quarter.
And now it takes dozens of the richest of the rich, who finally have become embarrassed by the situation, to come forward and speak the reality. So sad it took so long for them to get on board with the very richest - Buffet and Gates.
I believe that what has happened in the U.S. can be traced to the decline and fall of Communism. During the rein of Communism, competing economic models found it in their self interest to offer their citizens similar social benefits. In the face of diminished Communist power Capitalism has less competition and less obvious and immediate need to improve the lives of its citizens.
It took a force as mighty as the Great Depression to give Roosevelt the context he needed to create a belief in "the common good." He shamed the Rich into being team players and in the process he saved the U.S. from the threat of world Communism. In the process he also saved the upper class by raising their taxes and forcing them to moderate their course.
Today, the weak link in the coalition of working people is the White lower class which has been convinced that its self interest is one and the same as the upper classes'. This has been accomplished by appealing to their racism and a desire for privilege and linking their taxes with those of the upper class.
Now, once again we find ourselves with a catawampus economy where the bullying upper class has used its advantage to degrade the lives of its fellow citizens. The future be damned, just feed my hideous greed. The lower classes' wages have been falling since Reagan. And if you haven't noticed, as a result, the White lower class is bitter, in ill health, without education, filled with hate and largely dysfunctional: Welcome to Oklahoma.
Not just Oklahoma - this is nationwide phenomenon.
Another 800 lb gorilla in the room;
Notice how the Murdochian Lie and Warp Machine chants about the failures of Communism, controlled economies, etc. Well, in great part, that is true. In fact, for the MOST part that is true.
And yet, at the same time we have the largest single group of people in the world living under what is claimed to be Communism outstripping every other economy in the world. Does that mean that China is God's new favorite? Would have to be if we are to believe the propaganda MLWM puts out.
Or does it mean we have been incredibly lucky for the last 70 years - more than any other country in the world. Until now.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 23, 2010, 01:16:22 PM
Not just Oklahoma - this is nationwide phenomenon.
Another 800 lb gorilla in the room;
Notice how the Murdochian Lie and Warp Machine chants about the failures of Communism, controlled economies, etc. Well, in great part, that is true. In fact, for the MOST part that is true.
And yet, at the same time we have the largest single group of people in the world living under what is claimed to be Communism outstripping every other economy in the world. Does that mean that China is God's new favorite? Would have to be if we are to believe the propaganda MLWM puts out.
Or does it mean we have been incredibly lucky for the last 70 years - more than any other country in the world. Until now.
LOL! Fueled by our desire for cheap crap! :D
Delivered on the backs of over a billion people who live on less than $84 a week.
Depends on what HuffKosian definition of success is.
If we had 1.3 billion Americans, we would have about 7x the economy of China.
If you look at GDP per capita, according to the World Bank, the US is #5 and China is #83.
US GDP per person is $46.5K international dollars
China GDP per person is $6.8K international dollars
I'm sure that if we were to embrace a more Communist platform we could bring ourselves down to a GDP PPP of 6.8K too!
Quote from: we vs us on November 23, 2010, 11:16:35 AM
I'm always interested in the "class warfare" argument, in that when conservatives use it, it usually assumes a very specific direction of said warfare; ie. of the poor against the rich. I'm not sure why conservatives can't conceive of it running the other direction.
There's incontrovertible evidence that the richest Americans control an increasing amount of the economic pie. Here's an excellent chart from an excellent series in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026) on wealth inequality in the US:
(http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266033/100902_GD_Part1_PikettySaez-fig1.gif)
If the trickle down theory actually functioned, you'd see a much gentler upslope, as the resources given back to the top 10% were plowed back into the economy and trickled down to the lower 90% of the economy. Alas, that's not what has happened.
Instead, "from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes . . ."
So: the rich got waaaaay richer and the rest of us have stagnated (and FYI I appreciate your individual stories of success over the last decade or so; sadly you're running against the statistical norm). While it's taken the Great Recession to uncover that fact, it's a dynamic that's been in effect for nearly a quarter century. In essence, if this information proves anything it's that there is no such thing as trickle down. There is no compelling economic reason to "give" the top tier of earners more resources in the hopes that they will help (through employment) the rest of us. They already control a quarter of it and the rest of us are no richer for it. We are actually arguably poorer.
I'm not particularly "jealous," of that kind of unimaginable wealth (I don't have a good concept of how rich most of these folks actually are), though I am fearful that, as in any lopsided system, as they come to monopolize more and more of our wealth 1) they will continue to be untouchable, as their advocates in the GOP firewall them off from criticism/further taxation and 2) the government will begin a gradual but massive drawdown of our social services because they won't be able to fund them.
Step away from
wage growth for a minute and consider
job growth. How many jobs were created from 1980 to 2005? Who created those job opportunities? Sorry all those jobs aren't worth $250K plus per year, but unless you wish to pay three times what you do now for every consumable and durable good you use as well as services and utilities, it's simply going to remain that way.
There will always be a middle class working their arses off to help enrichen the upper crust (which has grown also). Unless you care to flatten out the income curve which was a proven failure under communism.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 23, 2010, 03:11:29 PM
Step away from wage growth for a minute and consider job growth. How many jobs were created from 1980 to 2005? Who created those job opportunities? Sorry all those jobs aren't worth $250K plus per year, but unless you wish to pay three times what you do now for every consumable and durable good you use as well as services and utilities, it's simply going to remain that way.
There will always be a middle class working their arses off to help enrichen the upper crust (which has grown also). Unless you care to flatten out the income curve which was a proven failure under communism.
I'm not agitating for everyone to be a Sr. Vice President of the Me Corporation, but if we create 10 million burger flipping jobs at minimum wage we've still got a major economic problem. You still guarantee a vast underclass working at poverty wages (with, coincidentally, no health insurance, 401k, or other bennies).
But either way we're looking at a decade of massive wealth redistribution (upwards) in exchange for the worst job gains since the labor dept has been keeping tabs. (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/) So using either metric (wages increased or jobs created), the trickle down scheme (at least in the Bush mode) has been a massive failure. We've gained virtually nothing from these huge giveaways from our treasury.
The missing piece of the puzzle is that China has realistically been at this for about 15 to 20 years. We have had 200. They started 20 years ago at what would probably be a 1750 AD equivalent level, and now possibly about 1930. The trajectory is meteoric if nothing slows/stops it.
At that rate, by 2050, they will be where we will be in 2100.
Should we attack now??
We saw what that "job growth" has been. 30% and more reduction in real wages in that time. That does affect the real standard of living for the biggest number of people - it goes WAY down - as it has. The quality of the job DOES make a difference. It DOES directly affect the strength of the economy. And it DOES affect the real people getting hosed by that "job growth".
I very much want and plan to get rich, too. And I also recognize that it will NEVER be by my efforts only. And the people who actually do the work should get their share of it too. (I have said for 15 years that the minimum wage should be $10.00 per hour - with student exceptions. Now it should be 15. And yes, that is what I pay entry level after 6 month "indoctrination" or try-out time, whatever you want to call it - up from starting $10 per hour. If a company cannot justify paying 10 per hour - now 15 - to do a certain job, then they should NOT DO THAT JOB. Rethink the process, product, whatever it is. You are doing it wrong!)
And here is another 800 lb gorilla - the big wages for CEO's - moving around now in the 580 to 1 ratio range. That means for every dollar the lowest paid employee makes, the CEO of some pretty big companies make better than 580 dollars. Grotesque on the surface, but even MORE so when one becomes aware that the corporation is getting to take that as a tax deduction. Which means in addition to me, you and likely most people here getting to pay 40% and the CEO getting to pay 16% - we are also subsidizing that CEO in a very real way to the tune of additional big percentages for the "salary" deduction off of the company income tax. ANOTHER WHAMMY!!
How special.
And we keep electing the Inhofe's of the world - the one who says the big oil companies haven't given him enough money! Millions!
And we keep getting screwed. And we keep voting AGAINST our own best interest. We sure do have it "together", don't we?
Quote from: we vs us on November 23, 2010, 04:48:15 PM
I'm not agitating for everyone to be a Sr. Vice President of the Me Corporation, but if we create 10 million burger flipping jobs at minimum wage we've still got a major economic problem. You still guarantee a vast underclass working at poverty wages (with, coincidentally, no health insurance, 401k, or other bennies).
But either way we're looking at a decade of massive wealth redistribution (upwards) in exchange for the worst job gains since the labor dept has been keeping tabs. (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/) So using either metric (wages increased or jobs created), the trickle down scheme (at least in the Bush mode) has been a massive failure. We've gained virtually nothing from these huge giveaways from our treasury.
Ahh, time for a little requisite Bush bash. How many non-government jobs have been created so far under President Obama?
I hear you drag this income disparity meme about once every month or two. I'm not very problem-oriented. What's your solution?
FWIW, it wouldn't have mattered who the President was 1992 to 2000, we had a huge explosion in the tech and telecom sectors during that period which translated to more jobs in transportation, hospitality, and well as piss-poor paying jobs in the retail sector which exploded. I'll always give Clinton his props for pretty sound fiscal policy but he also was the beneficiary of relatively little international chaos and the fellow lucky enough to be in the seat during what amounted to a second industrial revolution.
Over a million this year.
And yes, that is way too few! How do we get more? Give us some real idea - not the "cut taxes" mantra, since we know for a fact that is morally and intellectually bankrupt (hey, a lot like Inhofe!!) as well as being wrong.
Anyone out there hired anyone lately?? Any new jobs in Tulsa?? Anyone being hired in Tulsa??
As far as 1992 to 2000. No, it likely would not have made much difference who was President, since the stage had already been set for the largest expansion in the history of the world. The tax hikes of the previous two administrations had a huge impact on that - here is a little non-Murdochian reality moment - it kept deficits under control, with actual surpluses for 4 years. THAT is what allowed the continuation of the expansion that started soon after Reagan's first tax hike - up to that time, the largest in the history of the world. And then there was the infamous "watch my lips" tax increase.
Wow... all those tax hikes... and each one just spurring the economy on for year after year after year....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 23, 2010, 08:10:51 PM
Wow... all those tax hikes... and each one just spurring the economy on for year after year after year....
WOW! Let's raise everyone's (except mine) taxes by 50% or so. Just think how fast the economy would grow. Anyone with income over $250,000/yr would give all their income over $250,000 to the government for equitable redistribution.
Life would be great.
Well, maybe not.
WOW!! Wouldn't it be great if those richest would pay even half the percentage rate that most of us have to pay??
Not even asking for parity - just half parity would be a huge relief to the economy.
How is it the Murdochianistas can never look that fact in the eye and face up to the abomination they are promoting on the middle class in this country??
That one thing alone would likely take care of the deficit and a big chunk of the debt.
How about that??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 23, 2010, 08:41:43 PM
Not even asking for parity - just half parity would be a huge relief to the economy.
That one thing alone would likely take care of the deficit and a big chunk of the debt.
Got any numbers?
Gawd! How loud do you have to say it?
CUT SPENDING!
and CUT TAXES
Quote from: Gaspar on November 24, 2010, 07:38:24 AM
Gawd! How loud do you have to say it?
CUT SPENDING!
and CUT TAXES
How about this loud?
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 24, 2010, 08:09:32 AM
How about this loud?
Won't make any difference. In about 5 minutes someone will post something about how we can't afford tax cuts. :D
Quote from: Gaspar on November 24, 2010, 08:48:34 AM
Won't make any difference. In about 5 minutes someone will post something about how we can't afford tax cuts. :D
B..b.bbb...but we can't afford to cut spending because it's creating and saving so many new jobs Gaspar!
Quote from: Gaspar on November 24, 2010, 07:38:24 AM
Gawd! How loud do you have to say it?
CUT SPENDING!
and CUT TAXES
What spending would you like to cut? How are you reasonably going to cut enough spending to have money left over for tax cuts? (Hint: You aren't)
This is where I feel we get of the rails so to speak on this issue. the fact is it is not JUST tax cuts or spending cuts. I am resigned to the fact that as a provider of funds to the federal government that my taxes are going up. But am I being unreasonable to expect some show of faith on being a bit more realistic on the spending side as well? Targeted tax cuts can and should be used (and they have by this administration) but anyone that thinks there are not ways to cut spending as well is just being obstinant in their outlook.
Quote from: bokworker on November 24, 2010, 09:06:14 AM
This is where I feel we get of the rails so to speak on this issue. the fact is it is not JUST tax cuts or spending cuts. I am resigned to the fact that as a provider of funds to the federal government that my taxes are going up. But am I being unreasonable to expect some show of faith on being a bit more realistic on the spending side as well? Targeted tax cuts can and should be used (and they have by this administration) but anyone that thinks there are not ways to cut spending as well is just being obstinant in their outlook.
We are starting to see on a local and state level what happens when more funds are not available for ongoing operating expenses and charters and constitutions don't allow for deficit spending. Necessary and sometimes painful cuts follow. All it's going to take is 537 elected officials in DC who all have a common goal of a much more efficient and lean government.
It can be done, I simply thing most people believe that government is so bloated there's simply no way to rein it in. It can be reined in. You cannot cut 1mm federal jobs overnight without creating chaos, we know that much. But government can adapt just as well as corporations and people can when resources are pulled from them. You make do with less.
Quote from: bokworker on November 24, 2010, 09:06:14 AM
This is where I feel we get of the rails so to speak on this issue. the fact is it is not JUST tax cuts or spending cuts. I am resigned to the fact that as a provider of funds to the federal government that my taxes are going up. But am I being unreasonable to expect some show of faith on being a bit more realistic on the spending side as well? Targeted tax cuts can and should be used (and they have by this administration) but anyone that thinks there are not ways to cut spending as well is just being obstinant in their outlook.
Am eminently reasonable position. My argument has always been with the Tax Cuts Only crowd, which through fetishization and demagoguery has turned that into our only policy lever through which to tweak the economy.
Anyhoo: yeah, cut spending . . . but make sure that everything's on the table. If the left's sacred cows are on the carving table then so should the right's be. Defense and tax cuts, medicare and social security.
Quote from: nathanm on November 24, 2010, 09:00:57 AM
What spending would you like to cut? How are you reasonably going to cut enough spending to have money left over for tax cuts? (Hint: You aren't)
I would do exactly what President Obama's Blue Ribbon panel suggested. It was mind-blowing it made so much sense.
3 Cheers for the Blue Ribbon Panel!
Oh, wait. . .they've now been ostracized for not towing the party line of more gubment, more spending, and higher taxes.
WWHD?
I believe we are now in a position that there are no sacred cows. I find myself agreeing with virtually all of the recent proposals by the Deficit Reduction Panel. Defense, SS, Medicaire, the tax code (yes, even the home mortgage deduction)... everything is on the table. Make it hurt everyone and then everyone feels they they have skin in the game. We all have some responsibility in some way for the predicament in which we find ourselves. It will take all of us to get out of it.
Quote from: bokworker on November 24, 2010, 09:37:28 AM
I believe we are now in a position that there are no sacred cows. I find myself agreeing with virtually all of the recent proposals by the Deficit Reduction Panel. Defense, SS, Medicaire, the tax code (yes, even the home mortgage deduction)... everything is on the table. Make it hurt everyone and then everyone feels they they have skin in the game. We all have some responsibility in some way for the predicament in which we find ourselves. It will take all of us to get out of it.
+10
Quote from: bokworker on November 24, 2010, 09:37:28 AM
I believe we are now in a position that there are no sacred cows. I find myself agreeing with virtually all of the recent proposals by the Deficit Reduction Panel. Defense, SS, Medicaire, the tax code (yes, even the home mortgage deduction)... everything is on the table. Make it hurt everyone and then everyone feels they they have skin in the game. We all have some responsibility in some way for the predicament in which we find ourselves. It will take all of us to get out of it.
That's a great post and I agree. I think we all have a tendency to point in another direction at the government spending and benefits enjoyed by others while not looking closely at areas we depend on government where we should be willing to accept cuts as well.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 24, 2010, 09:28:56 AM
I would do exactly what President Obama's Blue Ribbon panel suggested. It was mind-blowing it made so much sense.
3 Cheers for the Blue Ribbon Panel!
Oh, wait. . .they've now been ostracized for not towing the party line of more gubment, more spending, and higher taxes.
WWHD?
The panel hasn't released its report. A couple of the people on the panel leaked their draft report in an attempt to put pressure on the other members.
In any event, I wasn't saying that spending shouldn't be cut (at some point; waiting for a more robust recovery would be ideal).
Gaspar stated that what we need are spending cuts and tax cuts. I asked him what spending he would like to cut. The reason I asked that question was to get him to think about it and realize that there's not enough fat to resolve the deficit through spending cuts alone. It's simply not possible at our present economic output.
I will give Gaspar one thing..unlike many of his fellow travelers, he didn't suddenly adopt this anti-deficit stance. It was there during Bush and remains during Obama's administration. This is in direct contrast to Congressional Republicans, who are adopting the rhetoric yet refuse to identify a specific plan to eliminate the deficit. I have zero respect for the fake deficit hawks who have suddenly come out of the woodwork now that it's a Republican talking point.
Quote from: nathanm on November 24, 2010, 10:20:01 AM
The panel hasn't released its report. A couple of the people on the panel leaked their draft report in an attempt to put pressure on the other members.
In any event, I wasn't saying that spending shouldn't be cut (at some point; waiting for a more robust recovery would be ideal).
Gaspar stated that what we need are spending cuts and tax cuts. I asked him what spending he would like to cut. The reason I asked that question was to get him to think about it and realize that there's not enough fat to resolve the deficit through spending cuts alone. It's simply not possible at our present economic output.
I will give Gaspar one thing..unlike many of his fellow travelers, he didn't suddenly adopt this anti-deficit stance. It was there during Bush and remains during Obama's administration. This is in direct contrast to Congressional Republicans, who are adopting the rhetoric yet refuse to identify a specific plan to eliminate the deficit. I have zero respect for the fake deficit hawks who have suddenly come out of the woodwork now that it's a Republican talking point.
Specifics?
Ok. . .
Cut federal employees by 20% (since it has grown by about that in this admin).
Cut federal employee salaries by at least 10%.
Increase SS age for those under 40 to age 70 and give people the freedom to make their own retirement choices if they so choose.
Adopt a flat tax rate and eliminate ALL deductions.
Eliminate breakfast and dinner in many public schools.
Enforce strict PAYGO policies in congress.
Eliminate all earmarks. They make little impact but represent a symptom of a larger cancer. Politicians that rely on earmarks for re-election are not representing the will of the people!
Eliminate dozens of redundant government offices.
Eliminate funding for public radio and television.
Eliminate subsidies for corn and other crops that are sold at below market or simply let rot in the fields.
Eliminate the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
Institute a school voucher program that forces public educators to compete for students.
Eliminate foreign aid to countries that are trying to kill us.
Take all national defense orders from private contractors and cut them in half.
Eliminate government documents printed in 27 foreign languages. If you want to browse IRS publication 15A in Thai, hire a translator. We spend 4.5 billion each year providing translation of our government documents.
How's dat?
How much will all that save? (some of your ideas for cuts are pretty hare-brained, but let's not quibble over that)
Quote from: nathanm on November 24, 2010, 10:47:56 AM
How much will all that save? (some of your ideas for cuts are pretty hare-brained, but let's not quibble over that)
Well. . .most are from the deficit panel's, how did you put it? Ahh yes "leaked" :D recommendations released in draft form on November 10th on the federal website. http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf
They claim these recomendations will bring spending down to under 22% of GDP. I think this is still WAY too high, but it's a start, and when I hear Democrats talk about reducing spending I get a "chill running up my leg".
So, lets shoot for 4 Trillion in reduction by 2020. We can keep lopping off heads until we reach that number. ;)
Edit: These recommendations will never be adopted because they go against the strict Cloward–Piven strategy this administration has adopted.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 24, 2010, 10:46:23 AM
Specifics?
Ok. . .
Institute a school voucher program that forces public educators to compete for students.
How's dat?
I disagree with taking money from public schools to give to private schools. Fix public schools. Just throwing $ at public schools (SQ 744) is not the answer either.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 24, 2010, 11:13:14 AM
I disagree with taking money from public schools to give to private schools. Fix public schools. Just throwing $ at public schools (SQ 744) is not the answer either.
And suddenly our coalition is falling apart . . .
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 24, 2010, 11:13:14 AM
I disagree with taking money from public schools to give to private schools. Fix public schools. Just throwing $ at public schools (SQ 744) is not the answer either.
If a business has no competition it will have no drive to innovate.
The Soviet Union lasted for 74 years. Businesses were state run and competition was eliminated. In 1990, soviets were still making phone calls on 1920s style phones, driving 1950s style cars, and listening to state run radio and tv on 1950s sets.
Public schools will perform at the very lowest level possible, unless their funding is based on performance rather than collective bargaining and population.
Why is Communist China the world's biggest consumer and strongest economy right now?
Primarily because from an economic standpoint they aren't acting as true communists... it remains the biggest risk, in my opion, going forward however to remember that communism is primarily a governmental idea built around central control. I think it will be interesting to see how they continue to govern as their middle class grows and becomes more prosperous. In general as the populace becomes more prosperous they want more self control..
Quote from: Gaspar on November 24, 2010, 11:48:12 AM
Public schools will perform at the very lowest level possible, unless their funding is based on performance rather than collective bargaining and population.
I have no problem with your last statement.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 24, 2010, 12:06:02 PM
Why is Communist China the world's biggest consumer and strongest economy right now?
as an aside Michael, China is no where near the worlds biggest consumer. The US consumer dominates that category.
Not only has Federal employment not grown by 20%, it has actually risen, then gone down again - due to census. Just like every 10 years. Including postal service!! So, as can be seen, the reality is vastly different from the "1984 Doublespeak" being spewed by the Murdochianista Machine. Too much Murdoch in the Kool-Aid!
And if we are truly concerned about the number of Fed employees, I submit a more accurate measure would be the count of how many Fed Emp's it takes per 1,000 population to run this circus. And that is at the lowest since the early '60s.
Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)
Executive Branch civilians Total U.S. population Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
1962 (Kennedy) 2.48 million 186.5 million 13.3
1964 (Johnson) 2.47 million 191.8 million 12.9
1970 (Nixon) 2.94 million* 205 million 14.4
1975 (Ford) 2.84 million 215.9 million 13.2
1978 (Carter) 2.87 million 222.5 million 12.9
1982 (Reagan) 2.77 million 232.1 million 11.9
1990 (Bush) 3.06 million* 249.6 million 12.3
1994 (Clinton) 2.9 million 263.1 million 11.1
2002 (Bush) 2.63 million 287.8 million 9.1
2010 (Obama) 2.65 million+ 310.3 million+ 8.4+
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget. *= Figure includes temporary Census Bureau workers. += Estimates by OMB and U.S. Census Bureau.
And that comes from here;
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html
Quote from: Gaspar on November 24, 2010, 11:48:12 AM
Public schools will perform at the very lowest level possible, unless their funding is based on performance rather than collective bargaining and population.
I disagree. You must see the worst in people and assume that just because they are in a union, their work is sub-standard.
You must not know many teachers. Most I know are very proud of their work and do much more than the lowest standard. They work very hard and do a great job.
I think your comment is insulting to all teachers. I would give you swats or send you to the Principal's office for that one.
Quote from: we vs us on November 24, 2010, 11:17:05 AM
And suddenly our coalition is falling apart . . .
\
I don't see vouchers as a spending cut, just transferring money to a different entity.
Gaspar,
If you get a chill when hearing Democrats talk about reducing spending, why are you not absolutely catatonic about the reality of what the Republicans have done about spending and deficits and debt in the last 30 years?
Constant source of amazement that reality is no where to be found when trotting out the old hacks about Democrats being the big spenders when by EVERY measure and ratio that can be used for evaluation, the Republicans have not only just outdone the Dem, but skyrocketed light years beyond them.
Too much of that special Kool-Aid blend.
I want to know what happened to the balanced budget amendment??? Remember the '70s?? Oh, yeah! That's right - the Republicontins got in office.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 24, 2010, 11:48:12 AM
The Soviet Union lasted for 74 years. Businesses were state run and competition was eliminated.
I think you should do a little reading on the Soviet economy before invoking it again. State-controlled, yes. Lack of competition, no, at least in heavy industry.
Besides, competition is no panacea. There are plenty of dysfunctional unregulated or lightly regulated markets out there.
And yes, the two folks who decided they needed to put media pressure on the rest of the panel do have some hare-brained ideas. Think about it for a second. Someone comes to you and asks "how should I go about reducing the deficit." Their answer: "Limit revenues." They may as well have answered "spaghetti." One does not follow from the other.
Let's examine the ratio of government employees to total population:
(http://media.share.ovi.com/m1/s/2594/1b4b936415d54648815e09f0a031eb82.jpg)
In terms of GDP, we have far fewer government employees relative to GDP than we have at any time since 1960.
And relative to private sector employment:
(http://media.share.ovi.com/m1/s/2594/a4a5c9dc486c4a61a621c3841c89b581.jpg)
I think that puts to rest the idea that we have unusually high government employment at present. You'll note how in recessions, the ratio of government employees to private employees increases. That's because private employees get laid off while government employees aren't as affected.
I like spaghetti!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 24, 2010, 12:06:02 PM
Why is Communist China the world's biggest consumer and strongest economy right now?
As illustrated above, they have the highest population of workers. Per Capital GDP is only a fraction of ours. A year's salary for the average Chinese is equal to a month's salary for us. Their entire economy is based on manufacturing cheap consumer products for the rest of the world.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 24, 2010, 12:41:04 PM
I disagree. You must see the worst in people and assume that just because they are in a union, their work is sub-standard.
You must not know many teachers. Most I know are very proud of their work and do much more than the lowest standard. They work very hard and do a great job.
I think your comment is insulting to all teachers. I would give you swats or send you to the Principal's office for that one.
My wife is a teacher, as are most of her friends. Some do a great job, but because exceptional performance is not rewarded, few do an exceptional job.
You can't give me swats any more. I have my rights! ;)
Quote from: nathanm on November 24, 2010, 12:55:28 PM
I think you should do a little reading on the Soviet economy before invoking it again. State-controlled, yes. Lack of competition, no, at least in heavy industry.
Besides, competition is no panacea. There are plenty of dysfunctional unregulated or lightly regulated markets out there.
And yes, the two folks who decided they needed to put media pressure on the rest of the panel do have some hare-brained ideas. Think about it for a second. Someone comes to you and asks "how should I go about reducing the deficit." Their answer: "Limit revenues." They may as well have answered "spaghetti." One does not follow from the other.
Please identify the "hare-brained ideas" in the draft from President Obama's panel.
Please illustrate how reducing spending from 43% GDP to 21% GDP (taking spending from over 6 trillion to just above 3 trillion) reduces revenue.
Also, provide evidence of how eliminating mortgage deductions and other standard deductions, and reducing tax rates to compensate reduces revenue.
I keep reading the darn draft and I can't see anything that would call for a hit on revenue that's not greatly overcome by a reduction in spending.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 24, 2010, 01:28:26 PM
Please illustrate how reducing spending from 43% GDP to 21% GDP (taking spending from over 6 trillion to just above 3 trillion) reduces revenue.
I didn't say spending reductions lead to revenue reductions (although that is a strong possibility in a stagnant economy), I said that the draft plan calls for a limit on government revenues as a percentage of GDP. Which has nothing to do with reducing the deficit. Which calls into question the motives of the people who wrote the draft.
China is floating their currency this week - so they say. This illusion we have maintained to ourselves that we are the "biggest and baddest" in the world may take a little hit real soon. I suspect that one of the net fallouts of this will be to show the real economic power of China. It is gonna be a whole lot more than a $4 trillion GDP when everything shakes out. And the per capita will change, too.
So they have gone from nothing to #2 in about 20 years. What will they do in the next 20 years?
We better reinstate the draft soon if we are to have even a ghost of a chance of fighting the next war!
Quote from: nathanm on November 24, 2010, 01:31:12 PM
I didn't say spending reductions lead to revenue reductions (although that is a strong possibility in a stagnant economy), I said that the draft plan calls for a limit on government revenues as a percentage of GDP. Which has nothing to do with reducing the deficit. Which calls into question the motives of the people who wrote the draft.
No, No it does not. It calls for a limit on government
SPENDING as a percentage of GDP. In the real world (not the liberal world) spending is the opposite of revenue.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 24, 2010, 02:26:38 PM
No, No it does not. It calls for a limit on government SPENDING as a percentage of GDP. In the real world (not the liberal world) spending is the opposite of revenue.
That's not what I read, but I haven't read the actual report.
Edited to add: Apparently, the co-chairs' draft report recommended
both. So why don't you go stuff your partisan snark where it belongs, over on redstate or lgf?
Edited again to add: Having looked at the slides, it's right there in the summary:
Quote
Caps revenue at or below 21% of GDP and gets spending down to 22% and eventually to 21%.
So we are back to where we were when we had our brief group hug...limit revenue to 21% of GDP AND limit spending to 21% of GDP and viola, a balanced budget.
edited to add- Now of course the hard part is that even doing that merely keeps the cumlative deficit (and national debt) level. Level is better than growing and yes, that means over time the ratio of debt to GDP is going down (assuming GDP growth is positive) but don't we really want the actual amount of debt to go down? i.e. have budget surpluses for a while?
Quote from: bokworker on November 24, 2010, 03:08:15 PM
So we are back to where we were when we had our brief group hug...limit revenue to 21% of GDP AND limit spending to 21% of GDP and viola, a balanced budget.
Limiting revenue does nothing to balance the budget. As I said before, it's like being asked to come up with a deficit reduction plan and making spaghetti instead.
I guess we could become California writ large if we wanted to, but it's a dumb idea. Conservatives like to say that states are like little laboratories where we can experiment with different policies and see what works. Revenue limiting is a failed policy. Why would we want to expand its application?
I'm not saying there shouldn't be
guidelines. We should seek to pay as we go in normal economic times. An arbitrary cap on revenues doesn't advance that cause one whit, though.
As an aside, I find it rather annoying that we all seem to agree that the deficit needs to come down, even if we disagree on the particulars of timing, but some have decided to tack on this extra thing about revenue. It strikes me as being like earmarks being attached to unrelated bills in Congress, which is again something we all agree is stupid. Yet here it is, rearing its ugly head in this discussion.
Edited to add: And we should all keep in mind that our largest present problem regarding the deficit is the economy. Federal revenues are off something over $400 billion since 2007. Combine that with the continued war expenses and increased social spending (UE, food stamps, etc.) and that's the vast majority of the deficit.
Hey President Obama and the Democrat-controlled legislative branch has had every opportunity to cut military spending the last two years.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 24, 2010, 05:41:58 PM
Hey President Obama and the Democrat-controlled legislative branch has had every opportunity to cut military spending the last two years.
And so did President Bush and his Republican controlled all three branches the previous six. What's your point?
Quote from: Hoss on November 24, 2010, 05:49:28 PM
And so did President Bush and his Republican controlled all three branches the previous six. What's your point?
Point being, that was one of the messages President Obama was resoundingly elected upon and a way he differentiated himself from "McSame".
Am I wrong? He's had two years to do some truly revolutionary stuff, don't hide behind "he's not had enough time yet"
Quote from: Conan71 on November 24, 2010, 06:35:16 PM
Point being, that was one of the messages President Obama was resoundingly elected upon and a way he differentiated himself from "McSame".
Am I wrong? He's had two years to do some truly revolutionary stuff, don't hide behind "he's not had enough time yet"
Never said that. I was merely pointing out that in six years the Rs had control of the executive and legislative, they did nothing.
Oh, but I forgot about that 'Mission Accomplished' crap and everything. Guess that makes it all better.
And most of that 'doing nothing' came from the Republicans threatening the filibuster more in that congress then ever before. So don't try and hide behind the 'well, the dems have both houses'. Senate didn't have enough for the super-majority.
Quote from: Hoss on November 24, 2010, 05:49:28 PM
And so did President Bush and his Republican controlled all three branches the previous six. What's your point?
I believe that is why the Republicans got trounced in 2008. The Hope and Change party was going to save us.
Quote from: Hoss on November 24, 2010, 06:38:17 PM
Never said that. I was merely pointing out that in six years the Rs had control of the executive and legislative, they did nothing.
Oh, but I forgot about that 'Mission Accomplished' crap and everything. Guess that makes it all better.
And most of that 'doing nothing' came from the Republicans threatening the filibuster more in that congress then ever before. So don't try and hide behind the 'well, the dems have both houses'. Senate didn't have enough for the super-majority.
Look, it wasn't in the mission of Republicans to shaft the MIC. We all know that. In spite of supposed fillibuster power, the Dems got some of the most controversial legislation ever proposed passed. Am I wrong?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 24, 2010, 06:54:31 PM
Look, it wasn't in the mission of Republicans to shaft the MIC. We all know that. In spite of supposed fillibuster power, the Dems got some of the most controversial legislation ever proposed passed. Am I wrong?
No, you're not. But the Repubs felt as if MIC spending was the one thing they needed to hold on to at all costs, because no way in hell were they going to admit to the American public that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Even when most of us know now that it is.
Am I an opponent of the war? Yes. The Iraq war. Was then and am still. We took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and lost Bin Laden because of it. All because W Bush wanted to get the revenge for that which his father should have done in 1990.
I'll agree we lost sight of what should have happened in Afghanistan but I find it difficult to believe the world would be a better place with Saddam Hussein still in charge of Iraq. I worked with a guy (Mike) in the late 80s whose parents sent him to the US from Iraq because of Mike's disagreement with the SH government. Saddam was not a nice person.
One of two things happened in Iraq: Either Bill Clinton was duped by the same intel Bush ll was (someone cue the Larry King interview w/ Clinton on the eve of Iraq II) or Hussein was a crazy liar about Iraq's capabilities.
In hindsight, Saddam on a short leash made a lot of sense. Everyone thought it would be a six week milk run. If it had been GWB would be a genius. As it was it did not play out that way. As far as a Mudochian war for oil, apparently we are not benefitting fom Iraq oil 8 years later.
There are no really 'nice' governments out there. SH was a cheesy little tin-horn dictator and maybe our little corner of the world is better. Maybe because instead of one Saddam Hussein, we created 100 of them in that area of the world. Plus put the Iran type Muslims in power. Yeah, that was well thought out. Not.
There were WMD at one time - chemical warfare equipment and supplies. And we are the ones who put them there, giving them to Saddam to attack Iran with.