| Author | Message | ||
     Boltrider |
Only if you believe in pulling from the social security fund to "balance" the budget. All presidents do it, but that doesn't make it any less shady. (Message edited by boltrider on August 16, 2011) | ||
| Cowboy |
Obamas Trip----The bus to disaster. | ||
| Boltrider |
I don't remember anything special about Clinton's social/economic policies. He tried universal healthcare, then had his ass handed to him by Gingrich and company during the midterms, after which he had the sense to move to the middle. He did not create a better economy - he presided over what was already set in motion and he stayed out of the way. The dot-com boom brought increased tax revenues and a 5000+ NASDAQ rating, with Clinton seeing very little of the negatives associated with a bust that came late in his second term. (Message edited by boltrider on August 16, 2011) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Ft. Bstrd: Do you see that chart differently than I do? It looks to me that revenue (tax collections) as a function of GDP has been the lowest since 1960 under Obama. Wouldn't that suggest that we need to raise taxes AND cut spending to work at eliminating the deficit, and that we can raise taxes across the board by 3-4 % without exceeding the average revenue/GDP since 1960's? Tax collection is a function of monetary velocity. If money isn't changing hands, taxes aren't being collected. This means that in order to have higher tax revenues, we must encourage individuals to spend money, invest in companies, and put money to work. Let's look at another chart  I don't have the numbers for 2001 to 2010, but we can see from the chart that large increases in tax revenues come directly after periods of economic expansion and growth. The issue is that you have to "prime the pump". Economically we have to encourage economic investment and growth. We do this by cutting taxes usually. I don't necessarily advocate cutting all taxes more, but I do advocate providing greater certainty in the market. Right now, the tax rates are uncertain, the future employee costs are unknown, government expansion is unknown, the future value of the dollar is unknown. How can an individual or a business hope to invest and have an understanding of what the result of that effort? If I invest for a 10 year expected duration, what will the tax rate be at the end of that 10 year period? What will the dollar be worth? What will the regulatory environment look like? How will employee benefits costs change during that 10 year time? What will be the cost of energy or raw materials during that time? With a lack of certainty, economic "betting long" will not exist. As a result, money doesn't change hands. Taxes aren't collected. Revenues don't rise. It also looks like we've only spent less than we bring in for two periods since the 60's. The first time was a brief period from the late 68' to late 69', the end of Johnson's term and the beginning of Nixon's term.to 1970. The second was a five year period from 1997-2002, all but one year of which was under the Clinton Administration. Should we return to Clinton era economics and social policy? I agree. We have a Federal spending problem. Spending bills originate in the House. The Republicans have held the House of Representatives 7 of the last 33 Sessions leading back to 1947.  http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_p arty_division_2.htm The balanced budget occurred following the 1994 elections and with the Session run from 1995 to 2005. It wasn't until the combination of the recession of 2000 (led by the collapse of the dot com bubble) and the impact of 9/11 that the economy contracted decreasing tax revenues. In addition, tax cuts were necessary to drive economic investment. In addition, expenditures were required to rebuild the military that had been significantly cut under Clinton.  It was when the Republican congress began spending like progressives that the house was lost in 2006. If Republicans forget why they were given the reigns of the House, they will be voted out again. | ||
| Swordsman |
Besides, sometimes it's fun watching how people here can twist the truth around to make it mean what they want it to mean. I figured as much. (ha, this was my 4444th post! weird) ~SM (Message edited by Swordsman on August 16, 2011) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
this was my 4444th post! Newb!  | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Ft bstrd: You say: "Tax collection is a function of monetary velocity. If money isn't changing hands, taxes aren't being collected. This means that in order to have higher tax revenues, we must encourage individuals to spend money, invest in companies, and put money to work. " But the first chart you posted shows that revenue is as low as it has been in fifty years AS A FUNCTION OF GDP. This means that, controlling for differences in "money changing hands" over the times, this is as low as government revenue has been in half a decade. So again, we could raise taxes across the board by 3-4% to help close the deficit gap (in addition to decreased spending) and still be lower than the average tax revenue as a function of GDP over the past 50 years. And yet the tea party says that it won't vote for ANYTHING that includes increased government revenue - deficit be damned. Now, I understand the principle of the tea party movement, and I respect that they've been able to accomplish so much. But principle doesn't balance budgets. I regularly see potential clients who want to fight for their principles. And I regularly tell them that they need to balance the cost of fighting for their principles against the benefit of doing so. In short, I tell them I'd be happy to charge them for my time in fighting for their principles, but the chances of winning are X% and the amount of economic benefit if we do win is Y$. And then they do the math and many decide their principles don't stand up to the cost/risk/reward balance. The tea party needs to recognize that the principle behind its movement is not going to balance the budget, which is really the end game they are (or should be) after. It is going to take increased revenue AND cuts to spending. (Message edited by honolulu_blue_esq on August 16, 2011) | ||
| Cityxslicker |
'Hillary Care' was largely adopted in concept, intent and practice in Washington state during 96-98 under the auspices of Debra Senn - insurance commissioner (why they allow someone that has NEVER been in the insurance industry to lead, steer and manipulate, 'regulate' that branch is beyond me.) She KILLED the individual market in this state 18 Insurance companies LEFT the market, 15 years later, you still cannot buy an individual health plan in this state from a domiciled entity. MEANING that the only way you can be compliant with the letter of the law, is to an exempted out of territory provider. This too will happen on a national level- insurance companies are already lining up and stating that they will drop the individual market come 2014, and ever increasing number of employers are saying that it is cheaper to pay the penalty than to offer coverage (and when the unemployment rate is an actual adjusted 15% (as it is if reported correctly to the 1978 matrix definition) then there is no incentive to offer retention benefits, because they will replace you with the next dozens of people that want you job. and now you get a new glut of 'entitlement' enrollees or 'participants; into the new government doled healthcare - and you know the republicans arent fans of this turd (look at the voting record on it) .... who do you think they are going 'vote' for? um yeah. It is a devisive crash in the market - the exact same designed crash that the 'houses' for everybody was. Welcome to the next casttrof*cky. Its only 1/6 of the commercial economy... and an estimated 35% of every dollar of spending out of DC .... You know that GM car that cant get build without thousands of dollars in healthcare and pensions cost directly attached to its production unit cost ?.... welcome to the new government. Enjoy the Change - Hope it gets better. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
But the first chart you posted shows that revenue is as low as it has been in fifty years AS A FUNCTION OF GDP. This means that, controlling for differences in "money changing hands" over the times, this is as low as government revenue has been in half a decade. So again, we could raise taxes across the board by 3-4% to help close the deficit gap (in addition to decreased spending) and still be lower than the average tax revenue as a function of GDP over the past 50 years. The GDP growth is a function of monetary velocity. As in there isn't any. The increase in tax revenues comes AFTER the growth of the economy not before. If you increase taxes, you discourage the economic investment that drives GDP growth. Tax revenues and economic growth are not, as is promoted by progressives, separate functions but are inextricably linked.  Nor are governmental functions (expenditures and budgets) separate functions. (See economic reaction to S&P downgrade). GDP won't rise until investors are confident in the outcome of that investors. (See rise in Gold) There is estimated to be between $11T and $13T of individual and corporate funds being held on the sidelines waiting to see what is going to happen. Those funds are NOT going to be invested in the market unless there is predictability and certainty of outcome. The threat of QE3 isn't helping. The problem isn't tax revenues. The issue is government expenditures. On that point, the TEA Party is dead on in its strategy. Hold the line on ANY tax increases and force radical cutting of the Federal budget. The problem is that the taxes always come, but the cuts NEVER do. This time, we will learn from the mistakes of Reagan and force the cuts first. Even if this means temporary or extended termination of Federal functions to do this. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Ft. I get what you are saying, as it is the common conservative mantra. Taxes = bad for growth. But you are talking around the point. 1. As a function of GDP, revenue is lower than it has been in 50 years, right? 2. We could increase tax rates across the board by 3-4% and our revenue as a function of GDP would still be less than the average for the last 50 years, right? If I'm wrong about those two things, tell me what I'm missing. | ||
| Reindog |
Raising taxes is like giving a crack addict more money. The addict will tell you anything to get that money but the addict will only buy more crack, not pay off his debt. So it goes with the Federal Government. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM JUST LIKE THE ADDICT HAS A DRUG PROBLEM. The nice sounding words, "raise revenue", is nothing but a smoke screen for raising taxes on the Middle Class. Please use the phrase "raise taxes" instead of "raise revenue" so people don't get lulled back to sleep. | ||
| J2blue |
I'm not so sure that the "Tea Party" has a platform on which principle can be called into question. But, for the "Tea Party" affiliated congressman that said "hell no" to any tax increase it may seem that they were against increasing revenues of any kind and thus hindering the ability of the government to reduce the deficit(s), let alone the total national debt. But, listening to the aforementioned reps it was clear that they were against any plan that did not bring spending under control first. Why vote for a tax increase, ostensibly to lower deficits, when you can't be sure the extra revenue won't be deferred into even greater government spending? Forget the "Tea Party" for a moment. Listen to what me, a lone voter, says: instill fiscal discipline first, then we can talk about adding revenue by whatever methods we may need. If any representative had proposed a plan that included a tax increase on any group that would legally be separated from the general fund and only used to lower the national debt, and not simply reduce the deficit de jour, I might have supported that. Forget the percentage of GDP tax and spend theories. That is not government of the people, that is socialist economic planning. I don't want any group of politicians and economist sitting in a backroom deciding how much of the national wealth that "we the people" should fork over. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I would pay more taxes voluntarily IF they could give me a reciept for every dime, and like all my other personal purchases I get to determin where that money goes. let the market determine the value of each agency that is not Constitutionally mandated. ie NONE of my money goes to NEA, DSHS, HHS, NIH, DOJ, SS, CMS well this goes on for a full alphabet. Just make sure the Navy gets all my money- and give half to the Corps. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
I must be looking at Ft.' s chart wrong. I see the largest gap in spending and revenue (taxes) in the last fifty years. Like two trains, if they drive towards each other, they will reach each other (balance) faster than they would if only one moves. Thus, we should cut spending and raise revenue if the goal is to balance the budget as quickly as possible (stated otherwise, stop going further in to debt). Once balance is reached, we've got to find a way to turn that into surplus to pay off the existing debt, either through addtional spending cuts, additional tax increases, or both. If your counter "yeah, but that only works if they actually use the taxes to pay off the debt," I won't argue with that. That is obviously true. At this point though, I'm not sure what other option we have. We could stalemate everything, default, and see where shit shakes out OR we could act rationally, adopt a balance plan to get our fiscal house in order, and hope like hell the politicians actually follow the plan. Will that happen? Who knows, but taking a shot is better than the alternative. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
HBE, Let me ask this another way. We've been concentrating ONLY on the tax/revenue side of the equation. What do you view as a POSITIVE indicator of market strength? What indicator would an investor or corporation view and believe indicated favorable economic conditions in the future? Strength of the dollar? A Federal government spending discipline? Jobs reports? Earnings reports? Energy price stability? Tax certainty? I'm not ruling out ANY increase in taxes as a limited part of the solution by any means. The issue is that Conservatives view taxation, the confiscation of the product of the work and effort of each citizen of the US, as the LAST option. The Progressives view taxation as the FIRST option to solve the "budget problem". See the recent debates over the debt ceiling as evidence of this philosophical difference. REAL cuts never materialized. Tax increases didn't either. The compromise was NO compromise. Collectively, the can was kicked down the road and is in the hands of, as Newt stated, the dumbest idea ever to come out of Washington. The plain truth is that the Federal government has over expanded. There simply isn't enough economy to pay for the government. You mention 3-4% tax increases. On what do you base this number? The deficit is currently $1.2T annually. Of this deficit, how much would this 3-4% increase generate, and on what total income number are you basing this estimate? | ||
| Cowboy |
If I live to be 300 I will never understand why some people want to tax investment captol. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Because it's "privileged" income. The bottom 50% don't have it, so it's a safe pool to go after. Same for estate taxes. The really sad thing is that continually higher taxes on corporations have a two fold negative impact on the lower and middle class. First the increased taxes are partially passed through as higher prices. Those prices are compounded all along the way. From the raw materials producer to the fabricator from the manufacturer to the trucker from the wholesaler to the retailer. Each of those individual corporations have passed along higher taxes in the form of price increases that are eventually passed onto the consumer. Gains in wages are eaten by hidden taxes. Second, the higher taxes that can not be passed through in the prices of goods and services result in jobs being shipped overseas. Lower job demand results in less competition for labor and lower wages. | ||
| J2blue |
There is something that really annoys me with any chart or graph that gets presented in such discussions. WHAT ARE THE DAMN ASSUMPTIONS AND BIAS OF THE PEOPLE WHO CREATE IT? That would go for "both sides" of this debate. However, that first link to the chart titled "Policy Changes Under Two Presidents, Figures In Billions" is an atrocious misrepresentation of fact. The creators are not the CBO, though the average reader would probably assume that. Second, the creators have obviously chose assumptions that negatively effect one president's "policies" while beneficially treating the other's. If anyone really believes that Obama's legacy of Health Reform will only cost $152 Billion then they are smoking some bad weed for sure. Oh, and look at the category for stimulus spending! Geeze -o- Pete. Heck, they even take some of the fat Obama is packing and try to paste it onto Bush in the "2008 stimulus and other changes". That isn't my typo, it says "...and other changes". James Fallows went on in the Atlantic to build on this shaky foundation of reality and argue that it was the Bush Tax Cut legacy that is the real "contributor to that deficit". Actually, he said "largest single contributor to that deficit". First, for what time period is he crediting Bush's tax cuts for a deficit? And when did Bush's tax cuts originally expire? Oh he relieves that one on Senate Republicans who are still in the minority, though, so the tab can still be put on Bush's side of the chart. The original article in the New York Times(How the Deficit Got This Big) has a great line though: "Mr. Obama’s policies in 2009 and 2010, including the stimulus package, added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary." Given the dire fiscal straights the country is in he should not have created any deficits at all! That is called balancing the budget, and if his predecessor did not do it doesn't mean that he can do it, too! Let me put words in Obama's mouth: "I just broke the bank, I didn't start it, it isn't my fault." Ppphtt! Now everyone go and argue over the other charts and see if we really have any common ground. | ||
| Buellinmke |
 | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Even the CBO isn't without bias. Be VERY critical of CBO numbers as well. Don't just buy what's being presented. Yes Buellinmke's graph is intellectually dishonest and factually inaccurate which is why I posted the two line graph. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Reality is starting to set I have laid off 48 employees because I can have the same income without them. Taxes have been raised on Corps If you hold stock in a corp you pay capital gains now if I work for a Corp and are a stock holder like all the s and llcs we get to pay ss fica etc on all income even dividends. are taxes as normal income. Unemployment is going up! | ||
| Crusty |
There are three different levels of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics. Your graph is honest while Buellinmke's graph is dishonest. I think both are, um, misleading. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
um that chart is wildly inaccurate, on the Healthcare issue alone That Bill is supposed to, and projected to cost 1 Trillion over Ten Years....not counting all the other cooking the books that the CBO and GAO are doing for the other accounts. And that is the PUBLISHED number.... anybody know what the ten year projection for Medicare/Medicaid was in 64?.... and what it ended up being by 74?!?!..... Go take a gander, you wont believe the numbers if they can from me, they are too exaggerated in scope, breadth and failure - shades of things to come. | ||
| Sifo |
I'm guessing there are huge problems with this graphic. It would be nice to see how they came up with these numbers, but the most obvious problem I see is the Bush era tax cuts. I have a real problem calling a doubling of tax revenues a "cost". This is simply an example of the Laffer curve in real life.  | ||
| Psykick_machanik |
I am at a COMPLETE loss to understand how anyone can justify and even agree that tax hikes are a good idea. I litterly cringe every month when i see all the minus-$$$$ in my paycheck. Heres the plane truth........If i had less taxes taken out i WOULD SPEND/INVEST MORE! the shop would get built, kids off to college, shop tools purchased, ECT..... Now enlarge that from little ole me to the entire country and what do you have????!!!! ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, SIMPLE WORKS. Let the PEOPLE spend their own $$$$$ (put that on a graph!) | ||
| J2blue |
Perhaps you are thinking of the Patriotic Millionaires group? Unfortunately, there is a large segment of our population who will buy that absurd astro-turf group as legitimate, hook, line, and sinker. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you go to the groups website it is very opaque as to who their members really are and what their true agenda is. My guess, if there are legitimate millionaires behind, is that they are extremely involved in a leftist flavor of evangelical Christianity, or simply secular humanists with an axe to grind. The media darlings are letting these impostors pass without any scrutiny at all. I don't think Warren Buffett is a part of their group, but they were quick to capitalize on his commentary to associate themselves with him. Yes, it is absurd that a human of any amount of wealth would not employ their earned income to directly help their fellow citizens by buying goods and services, or directly employing them. Instead this group wants us to believe that a millionaire would rather give the money to government to maintain the unemployed on unemployment insurance or welfare... because that is the compassionate thing to do. ??? Someone really needs to fact check such an outfit and get the scoop on who they really are and what their agenda really is. It is an asinine proposition they put forth and the media is complicit in trying to dupe the masses. | ||
| Reindog |
The media died in 2008 when it failed to properly vet Obama and became his propaganda arm. It is now NO different than Völkischer Beobachter or Pravda. It is happening again by vilifying anything non-Obama but gives Obama a pass. Submit or be submitted. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Reindog: You think the media was still alive before 2008? What a joke. | ||
| Fahren |
^^^ Yeah, that,HBE (x 1,000). What a joke, indeed. | ||
| Reindog |
It is a matter of degree. The simultaneous canonization of Obama and demonization of Palin was unparalleled in 2008. The New York Times used to be a great newspaper. Today, it is a slag heap devoted to furthering its progressive agenda rather than reporting the news. |
