The Fiscal cliff

[uofom3]

The important fact in this here thread is a previously thought extinct Ted appears.

Still rockin'.... Just haven't been posting.

Lots of people here must have been reading "how to lie with statistics". You cannot think about any of this in absolute terms - big numbers are scary when not compared to other big numbers -no one is scaling the situation. Look at this as a percentage of something else and not on a nominal basis and it looks a lot different.

We also need to remember that we have seen several periods in u.s. history where the debt as a % of GDP has been much higher than now. Can this go on forever? No. But it can go a lot farther. Comparisons to us and Greece are ridiculous - Greece doesn't have and essentially never had a viable economy in the first place - plus their tax collection system is a joke.

My thoughts on how you fix the economy?

- reinstate glass-steagall, repeal sarbox
- stop letting banks park money at the fed deposit window for 25bps risk free
- stop flattening the yield curve to give banks a reason to lend so there is some margin/spread there which should help increase the velocity of money (lending).
- cut unemployment benefit duration by at least half.

I'd start there, but then there are a lot of subsequent steps you would have to take that I don't have the patience to hammer out.

[rwh11385]

Total avoidance, good tactic. Throw some questions back at me instead of just answer the questions directly.

You know you are asking questions to avoid my initial prompt, right? Or did you forget? I still don't see any support whatsoever.

So you're going to give up on your Reagan tactic now that you know his first big tax cut was 1981? Your data supports my argument. Thank you.

What? "now that you know" The point was that the most significant change in top marginal tax rate wasn't until the later part of the 80s so any assumed huge influence on disposable income from top rate changes is shown to be invalid.

And so does the idea that you can raise taxes in a good economy.

What does?

I know you think I have the idea that lower taxes=booming economy. It's not the case. But it won't matter at this point because your hostility over powers your logic.

Building a strawman? I believe that for a particular portion of the Laffer Curve, lower taxes mean economic growth and enough of it for an increase in tax revenues.

However, are you saying that you don't think lowering taxes drives economic growth? So why are you so gungho that a small increase on a small percentage of the population would have a drastic change, particularly compared to a fiscal cliff being gone off of if a compromise isn't reached?

What hostility? My determination to stick to logic, facts, and reason instead of just making simplistic claims with no support? Maybe you should just a forum where people accept statements without any data to back them up and stop posting where people will hold you to the most basic standard of a discussion.

Wow you're really getting desperate again. Have you ever owned you're own business? Those that don't pass this tax on to their customers will only see less money in their own pocket. Their choice. If their business is already successful they more than likely can take it in stride. If not, you're question that they wouldn't pass the cost on is juvenile.

I'm desperate? You are the one who spends two entire pages of a thread avoiding questions because you lack any ability to respond to them.

Way to assume it up and make a claim based on your premises instead of stuff called data or facts.

[uofom3]

Although I personally prefer lower taxes, I think the onus is on you to prove your claim. Everyone says X will have Y effect but don't necessarily have the numbers and analysis to back it up. I registered Republican after a HS teacher wanted me to do a report on how Reaganomics failed and could only summarize why it was successful, although looking back down the support wasn't exactly definitive by my standards today. More private activity in lieu of government is preferred, and we're ahead of many countries in that regard... but the last time Dems got their way and raised taxes (after a Republican president did the same) didn't exactly meet your claim here.





Fortunately, personal consumption has generally been becoming a greater factor in GDP.



And I said, I'm all for lower taxes, a more efficient government, less crowding-out... but your claim doesn't match necessarily history.

Truth - no correlation exists between changing tax rates and a bad stock market/economy...

[rwh11385]

Still rockin'.... Just haven't been posting.

Lots of people here must have been reading "how to lie with statistics". You cannot think about any of this in absolute terms - big numbers are scary when not compared to other big numbers -no one is scaling the situation. Look at this as a percentage of something else and not on a nominal basis and it looks a lot different.

We also need to remember that we have seen several periods in u.s. history where the debt as a % of GDP has been much higher than now. Can this go on forever? No. But it can go a lot farther. Comparisons to us and Greece are ridiculous - Greece doesn't have and essentially never had a viable economy in the first place - plus their tax collection system is a joke.

My thoughts on how you fix the economy?

- reinstate glass-steagall, repeal sarbox
- stop letting banks park money at the fed deposit window for 25bps risk free
- stop flattening the yield curve to give banks a reason to lend so there is some margin/spread there which should help increase the velocity of money (lending).
- cut unemployment benefit duration by at least half.

I'd start there, but then there are a lot of subsequent steps you would have to take that I don't have the patience to hammer out.

The forum misses rational economic talk from ya man.

Context is very important and I don't think many people demand putting things into perspective anymore. Shock factor with nothing to size up against is key for TV ratings.

And as big as our debt is and people repeat the number (and attribute it to the current President, regardless of who it is), it's the result of policies of many years in the making and will take many years (and intelligent, rational decision making) to fix. But like debt, our government spending as % of GDP is lower than the other countries like France and Greece. We can get better but it isn't worth burning down the place over.

Like joshh said, if it is factual since he didn't provide the quoting source, Obama shouldn't be seeking higher rates as punishment or class warfare, but trying to claim that the economy is going to be that negatively effected by the top marginal tax rates from the 90s without providing any support is dubious. I'd love it if someone could provide a deep look into how tax rates across income groups influence the economy and growth, as that could be used for an optimization of the Laffer Curve and rates would be set instead of a constant quibble. But I haven't seen anything like that.

But maybe the economy is defined by more than simply marginal tax rates which are meaningless without considering deductions or credits in our convoluted code? Stuff like technology and innovation, education, population growth rates, trade balance, and lifestyle changes might also have a little bit of influence too.

A private space race / mining asteroids, better fuel efficiency, cheap renewable energy, more productive agriculture can help the economy... so can a higher % of people finishing high school and also people learning technical skills instead of dropping out or learning valuable skills in college instead of just racking up debt that can't solve the world's problems... allowing people who want to work here can do so and pay payroll taxes instead of being under the table, take advantage of our reshoring and reduce demand for foreign energy... and legalize gay marriage and stop the war on drugs to grow the economy, particularly with less people costing money in prison and removed from the labor force as well as less enforcement to fight a losing effort. Plus tax it. But I guess if the news wants people to focus on marginal tax rates, then we should do as we are told.

[CorvallisBMW]

Still rockin'.... Just haven't been posting.

Lots of people here must have been reading "how to lie with statistics". You cannot think about any of this in absolute terms - big numbers are scary when not compared to other big numbers -no one is scaling the situation. Look at this as a percentage of something else and not on a nominal basis and it looks a lot different.

We also need to remember that we have seen several periods in u.s. history where the debt as a % of GDP has been much higher than now. Can this go on forever? No. But it can go a lot farther. Comparisons to us and Greece are ridiculous - Greece doesn't have and essentially never had a viable economy in the first place - plus their tax collection system is a joke.

My thoughts on how you fix the economy?

- reinstate glass-steagall, repeal sarbox
- stop letting banks park money at the fed deposit window for 25bps risk free
- stop flattening the yield curve to give banks a reason to lend so there is some margin/spread there which should help increase the velocity of money (lending).
- cut unemployment benefit duration by at least half.

I'd start there, but then there are a lot of subsequent steps you would have to take that I don't have the patience to hammer out.

HOLY SHIT, Ted! You're alive!

:)

Good to see you're still around and kickin'

[uofom3]

The forum misses rational economic talk from ya man.

Context is very important and I don't think many people demand putting things into perspective anymore. Shock factor with nothing to size up against is key for TV ratings.

And as big as our debt is and people repeat the number (and attribute it to the current President, regardless of who it is), it's the result of policies of many years in the making and will take many years (and intelligent, rational decision making) to fix. But like debt, our government spending as % of GDP is lower than the other countries like France and Greece. We can get better but it isn't worth burning down the place over.

Like joshh said, if it is factual since he didn't provide the quoting source, Obama shouldn't be seeking higher rates as punishment or class warfare, but trying to claim that the economy is going to be that negatively effected by the top marginal tax rates from the 90s without providing any support is dubious. I'd love it if someone could provide a deep look into how tax rates across income groups influence the economy and growth, as that could be used for an optimization of the Laffer Curve and rates would be set instead of a constant quibble. But I haven't seen anything like that.

But maybe the economy is defined by more than simply marginal tax rates which are meaningless without considering deductions or credits in our convoluted code? Stuff like technology and innovation, education, population growth rates, trade balance, and lifestyle changes might also have a little bit of influence too.

A private space race / mining asteroids, better fuel efficiency, cheap renewable energy, more productive agriculture can help the economy... so can a higher % of people finishing high school and also people learning technical skills instead of dropping out or learning valuable skills in college instead of just racking up debt that can't solve the world's problems... allowing people who want to work here can do so and pay payroll taxes instead of being under the table, take advantage of our reshoring and reduce demand for foreign energy... and legalize gay marriage and stop the war on drugs to grow the economy, particularly with less people costing money in prison and removed from the labor force as well as less enforcement to fight a losing effort. Plus tax it. But I guess if the news wants people to focus on marginal tax rates, then we should do as we are told.

Also good points. I would point out that all tax increases are bad in the long run for an economy- but in the short/intermediate term they tend to have little to no impact.

[rwh11385]

Also good points. I would point out that all tax increases are bad in the long run for an economy- but in the short/intermediate term they tend to have little to no impact.

True, it's a matter of efficiency and dead-weight losses. But a nation cannot fund itself, even just the basic costs to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", without some taxes. We should try to find the rate and structure (hopefully more simplified) that provides maximum revenue while having minimal drag on the economy.

Hopefully we can work towards having more private efforts helping to promote the general Welfare (rise of social enterprises) and people use their liberty to find success rather than expecting to be entitled by it, which will help remove some of the burden on the government.

I also meant to say that in your ideas to fix the economy - I think people kept pushing the UI benefits extensions because of the simple fact that few people saved for emergencies and were spread thin with their debt. Most people couldn't afford their lives while employed, let alone after being laid off. So the government covered for them - but hopefully now people are smarter and I think the data shows people are having less of their income be required to meet debt payments and we have a positive savings rate again. As Sleeve reminds some people, UI is something that is accounted for with our employment - although the extensions are not. Running out certainly encourages people to find work, but let's also try not to have such a vacuum in our collective bank accounts if shit ever hits the fan again individually. At least, that's what should be the case... and government not promising to cover us next time like a parent who is forgiving of a money-stupid child.

[CorvallisBMW]

Pew released a new poll yesterday about the public's attitudes towards the "Fiscal Cliff"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/04/National-Politics/Polling/release_181.xml

No surprise, they'd blame Republicans in Congress over President Obama 53% to 27% if it happens.

Can't say I blame them, seeing as how Boehner and his lackies have held the entire country hostage to higher tax rates because they refuse to allow taxes to go up 3% on millionaires.

[gwb72tii]

Pew released a new poll yesterday about the public's attitudes towards the "Fiscal Cliff"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/04/National-Politics/Polling/release_181.xml

No surprise, they'd blame Republicans in Congress over President Obama 53% to 27% if it happens.

Can't say I blame them, seeing as how Boehner and his lackies have held the entire country hostage to higher tax rates because they refuse to allow taxes to go up 3% on millionaires.

so i'll assume corvallis that you want the marginal rate to go up on "millionaires" to help pay for the messiah's spending

please show us all how it does anything to lower the deficit spending this fool is commited to.

[rwh11385]

so i'll assume corvallis that you want the marginal rate to go up on "millionaires" to help pay for the messiah's spending

please show us all how it does anything to lower the deficit spending this fool is commited to.

Classic referring to the messiah instead of actually caring to argue based on facts.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2012/01/31/10998/what-caused-this-years-deficit/

Bottom line: The narrative that an “Obama spending spree” caused our deficit problem is utterly false.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/02/chart-of-the-week-medicare-spending-is-main-cause-of-runaway-deficits/

Chart of the Week: Medicare Spending Is Main Cause of Runaway Deficits

Entitlement spending is the main cause of long-term runaway federal deficits. Medicare is the fastest-growing program due to retiring baby boomers, the effects of an aging population, and rising healthcare costs.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/spending-cuts

But hey, who needs facts? Support a leader who talks about Big Bird although Seasame Street doesn't get direct benefit from the tiny speck of federal spending that goes to PBS vs. the growing Entitlement programs. You're right, blow reasonablility out the window and blame the deficit on Obama's spending... compared to what spending and programs he inherited.

[gwb72tii]

nice non-answer/strawman/re-direct
and the question was for corvallis, the "libertarian" from oregon

[rwh11385]

nice non-answer/strawman/re-direct

LOL. Dude, at this point you are just throwing words at the screen and hoping you making any sense, but you fail so miserably.

I directly attacked your claim with facts to show it was invalid. That's not strawman nor a non-answer. It's a direct response to your statement of ignorance.

[gwb72tii]

i asked corvallis a question
hard for you to understand?

[rwh11385]

i asked corvallis a question
hard for you to understand?

So because you asked Corvallis a question I'm not allowed to point out that you are full of it? There's private messages for a reason if you can't take all the people pointing out your BS. This P&R forum isn't your personal cesspool of ignorance, although you try to make it that way.

[streetwaves]

nice non-answer/strawman/re-direct
and the question was for corvallis, the "libertarian" from oregon

In my experience, someone is losing an argument when they start posting short non-responses like this all the time.

By the way rwh, where the fuck do you get all these charts? Is there some chart database I'm missing out on, or are you just good at knowing how to find them? Not hatin' either, they obviously work.