Josh,
Honest question here, what is your highest form of education received? Eighth grade, ninth grade?
Seriously man, I have seen you post on forums for years now, and no matter what the topic, you take the most outlandish, uneducated, and just frankly "wrong" viewpoint, no matter how badly you get refuted. You have zero critical thinking capability, and you just sort of slam your head into the ground and never "get" it. You've got this toxic combination of dumb-dumb paranoia and a complete aversion to anything factual or objective.
There is a quote generally attributed to Lincoln, stating "it it better to remain silent and be thought a fool, then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Print that off. Tape it to your computer screen.
-Charlie
-
So basically, you really do have zero reading comprehension.
If by destroy my argument you mean absolutely back it up... and prove again you are clueless.Given the enormous debt owed by the American government, to justify a tax cut today, it must be clearly and powerfully effective. We should demand well-designed tax cuts that get the most bang for our buck. Tax cuts that give money back to people without changing incentives might sound good, but they will have no stimulative effect today and most likely lead to higher future taxes, which will increase the disincentives to work and invest and slow future growth.
Economists of all stripes agree that short-term tax cuts or rebates have little effect on incentives. Even paleo-Keynesian Paul Krugman wrote critically of the 2008 tax rebates. Although these short-term measures return money to those who made it, they leave the economy indifferent in the short run and obviously do nothing to help growth in the long run.
Why don’t short-term tax cuts help long-run growth? Because long-term growth is determined by investment and technological change.
How about the short run? Don’t demand-side “stimulative” policies like rebates and the payroll tax cut boost the economy in the near term? According to Keynesian theory, a consumer receiving a rebate might go out and spend the money on shoes, then the cobbler would spend his extra income at the grocer, and the grocer would spend her extra income at the glazier, and so forth.
But this is a remarkably naïve approach, since it never asks where the original money came from. Critics note that the government can pay for the rebate only by borrowing money from the banker, who then lends less to the cobbler, who thus buys less from the grocer, and so forth.
Fairy-tale economics works only when you tell half the story.
You might want to spend more time reading critically.
Although you claim that ending the payroll tax cut would hurt employment, Heritage says:
You fail to understand that the link was attacking short-term demand-side approaches which include the payroll tax holiday. That is far different from supply-side tax cuts which bring down marginal tax rates so people have more incentive to work, instead of possibly less with the demand-side approach. You are simple-minded and think that just because conservatives like apples that they must like all fruits, including oranges, when anyone educated would understand that oranges are different and not liked by conservatives.Short-term tax cuts would not increase investment and employment, but they would increase the deficit. That’s not good enough.
You are not only clueless and wrong but too clueless and too poor of a reader to realize when you are wrong and instead call me an idiot and attack my stance even when it is the correct one. IRONY.Last edited by rwh11385; 01-02-2013, 11:03 AM.Leave a comment:
-
Your pants are at your ankles numb nut. While you go on about me supporting Keynesian economics you just put up a Conservative link destroying your entire augment that you started in the first place.
Now I know your just going to do your usual split hairs and spin all you can but you I have to thank you for talking out of both sides of your head right about now.Instead of more short-term fiddling, the Administration should work with Congress to provide a long-term solution to the $500 billion in permanent tax increases scheduled for January 1, 2013. A credible, long-term deal that keeps tax rates low and brings debt under control gives the best chance for the economy to finally experience a full recovery from the 2008 recession.Leave a comment:
-
Your inability to read or understand basic concepts is typical. Have you read nothing I've posted? It clearly shows you are 180 degrees from reality. You are simple.
Although Obama likes Keynesian economics and welfare for the people, he knew in July that it wasn't going to live into 2013. What I don't get is why you are mad about losing something conservatives were against - or are you just that stupid?Leave a comment:
-
So being completely wrong = pointing out my pants are down? Seems it would make more sense that joshh's pants are down and talking out of his ass like you do most of the time.
Maybe you can explain why my position that the payroll tax cut should end is wrong or liberal, or why the holiday wasn't just a Keynesian move that threatened social security. Because that's the stupidity joshh was claiming and you apparently think has my pants down. Or are you just quick to jump on a side completely ignorant of the facts and reality?
Leave a comment:
-
It's become very typical.
This time he's trying to tell me I'm being Keynesian for wanting lower taxes when Conservatives are for lower taxes. Sometimes Rwh is a mindless fool and has to do what he needs to to try to stir the pot...even if it doesn't make sense.
By the way you fucking idiot (Rwh of course) Obama fought for this cut for a good portion of the year. Keep telling yourself no one wanted it.Leave a comment:
-
LOL dude. You are so lost it is hilarious, but let me help you out. You call me a liberal because I am glad the payroll tax holiday wasn't extended and along the same lines think that you "blew me out of the water" before. Well, let me explain how you aren't good at being conservative and actually just an idiot instead.
You are not educated enough to know when tax cuts are Keynesian or not, supply-side or demand-side. You're a mindless fool who can't even understand the fundamentals of economic thought and are calling someone with a conservative position a liberal out of your absolute ignorance. IRONY OVERLOAD.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandom...-no-keynesian/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...n-sand-castle/Romney’s tax plan would reduce every rate of the income tax by 20 percent. And as Larry Kudlow is keen to point out, here is how Romney justifies it: “By reducing the tax on the next dollar of income earned by all taxpayers, we will encourage hard work, risk-taking, and productivity by allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn.”
This argument is a supply-side one. The justification for tax cuts here is that they prompt people to expand their horizons in the world of work. The demand-side, or Keynesian argument for tax cuts is that they “put money in people’s pockets,” as the saying goes; in the Keynes jargon, they raise people’s “propensity to consume.”
The crucial difference between supply-side and Keynesian tax cuts is one of design. Supply-side tax cuts occur at the marginal rates of the income tax, whereas Keynesian tax cuts occur before those rates. Under a regimen of marginal rate cuts, the most remunerative thing to do is earn more income. Under non-marginal cuts, you get the full amount of the cut no matter if you work more or not.
Moreover, if marginal tax rates are high, and you get a non-marginal cut, you might even decide to work less than before. A non-marginal tax cut increases your income beyond what you’d been making in the past. If your last bit of work is barely paying — say taxed at 1980’s marginal rate of 70% — you can cut back on work and still see the same take-home pay as before.
It’s clear what makes a tax cut supply-side or Keynesian. Supply-side tax cuts prompt people to envision more income and thus go for earning it. Demand-side tax cuts increase paychecks without encouraging more work and production.
Here’s the president on his kind of tax cuts, referring to the recent reduction in the social security levy: “It means $40 extra in their paycheck. And that $40 helps to pay the rent, the groceries, the rising cost of gas — which is on a lot of people’s minds right now. LaRonda Hill — right here — told us how $40 covers the water bill for a month. So this tax cut makes a difference for a lot of families.”
Obviously the Keynesian variety. The president sees tax cuts — demand-side ones — as a sort of welfare program, whereas Romney sees tax cuts — supply-side ones — as a spur to economic growth. You might take the persistence of the Obama-style tax cuts over these last few years as a natural accompaniment to sluggish recovery.
These tax cuts were not meant to spark people into new initiatives, but to help people along during hard times. In turn, Romney’s tax cuts may be seen as an antidote to sluggishness, in that their purpose is to get the economy to recover into newness and to boom.
If the New York Times would interviewed me, or any number of much more distinguished non-Keynesian economists, it could learn why a payroll tax extension will either harm our fragile recovery or have no effect at all.
If the Republicans had both a spine and a consistent voice, they would take the case to the voters with three logical arguments:
First, the Social Security Administration reports that social security revenues have fallen short of expenditures in both 2010 and 2011 (2010 was the first time since 1983). Payroll tax cuts, obviously, widen the deficit.
Reasonable consumers and investors will conclude that Congress lacks the political will to resist further payroll tax holidays. Social Security threatens to become an unfunded entitlement paid out of general revenues.
Legitimate and widespread fears of insolvency and higher taxes create more uncertainty, which reduces investment and consumption. The recovery falters with a real threat of a double-dip recession.
Second, all economists (except for a few odd balls) know that temporary tax cuts do not affect consumer spending. Experience has proved this time and time again. But advocates of the payroll tax holiday sell it on the very grounds that it is temporary. Nor do temporary payroll tax cuts promote hiring. Why would a business hire if the tax advantage will disappear shortly?
Third, Republicans indeed favor tax cuts, but only those that align incentives to innovate, start businesses, accept jobs and be productive in whatever you do. They do not favor temporary band-aid tax cuts that will either do harm or accomplish nothing. A temporary payroll tax cut accomplishes none of these things and should be opposed. Case closed.It is disheartening that so few conservative economists and politicians explain in a logical and direct way why Keynesian economics has failed over the past few years.
But hey, keep crying over a tax holiday that no one with a clue still wanted, no one could prove actually helped, and carrying the ignorant notion that all tax cuts are favored by conservatives. It only continues to point out what a foolish troll you are, even when you think you are "blowing someone out of the water". Maybe consider educating yourself or shutting up. Your argument rests on demand-side as Forbes mentioned almost welfare program reasoning and "more money in pocket" approach which is opposite of supply-side economics, marginal tax rates, and what educated conservatives like.To stimulate GDP growth, a tax cut has to cut the marginal tax rates upon which the decision makers in the economy base their decisions to work and, above all, to invest. Because the Social Security tax applies only to wage income, and then only up to a "cap" of $106,800/year, this tax does not have a significant impact upon the decisions that drive the economy. Accordingly, cutting the Social Security tax would be expected to produce no benefit, and the 1Q2011 GDP numbers show that no benefit is exactly what this tax cut produced. Interestingly enough, in opinion polls taken at the time that the tax bill was passed, the only element of the package that the public did not support was the Social Security tax cut.Last edited by rwh11385; 01-02-2013, 04:47 AM.Leave a comment:
-
Yeah I know you like to play games with words.
I already blew you out of the water with you not being non-partisan so stop trying to play that card. You fucking lost. You're anything but non-partisan.
"Lower taxes" being only Keynesian economics is a fucking joke and you know it. Being conservative lower taxes would be a norm. Nice try on the word play though.
Oh yes, you still think people falling off the back side of unemployment is the larger part of our improving economy. That is an uneducated view if there is one.
Yes of course I should base my opinions on what Republicans and Democrats think, because they've been so successful at bringing this economy back so quickly to fully swing. Another brilliant view by you.
This tax increase (regardless of your playing with words again) hits the middle class (and regardless if I was wrong on employers or not). Obama was even trying to fight for this holiday extension earlier this year. Hate to bring that fact up to you. A family making $50,000 a year will now see $1,000 less because of this. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a family making 50k could probably use that 1k pretty badly in this economy where gas prices are stably high along with food prices and other commodities.
But fuck it, obviously your worried about SS not the middle class.Leave a comment:
-
I find it interesting that you defend a Keynesian effort whose extension had no support and instead of realizing that you are wrong, you attack me for being apparently liberal for not wanting continued Keynesian crap. The real problem is people like you who are clueless, and not understanding how hilariously stupid the things you said are.
What kind of conservative are you to want deficit-funded Keynesian stimulus?
The real jobs problem is long-term unemployment and labor mismatch / lazy people whose industries aren't likely to come back regardless of economic growth and should get with the times and get re-trained. Job training programs have been a part of many recoveries. If you doubt it, just look at a Beveridge curve - it's rather clear.Leave a comment:
-
The payroll holiday that businesses didn't get will hit them harder than the middle class which did see their payroll contributions decease?
Employers still kicked in the same amount.Congress and Obama cut the share paid by workers from 6.2% to 4.2%.
A temporary reduction in Social Security payroll taxes expires at the end of the year and hardly anyone in Washington is pushing to extend it. Neither Obama nor Romney has proposed an extension, and it probably wouldn't get through Congress anyway, with lawmakers in both parties down on the idea.
Even Republicans who have sworn off tax increases have little appetite to prevent one that will cost a typical worker about $1,000 a year, and two-earner family with six-figure incomes as much as $4,500.
Before he was named as Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., disparaged the payroll tax cut, calling it "sugar-high economics" that wouldn't promote long-term growth.Politicians from both parties say they are concerned that it threatens the independent revenue stream that funds Social Security.
They are backed by powerful advocates for seniors, including AARP, who adamantly oppose any extension.
"The payroll tax holiday was intended to be temporary and there is strong bipartisan support to let that tax provision expire," said Sen. Orrin of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. "The continued extension of a temporary payroll tax holiday has serious long-term implications for Social Security and, frankly, it's not even clear that it has helped to boost our ailing economy.""There's a growing consensus that Congress and the president can't continue to divert such a critical revenue stream from Social Security," said Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, a senior Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. "More and more Americans understand that that payroll tax cut, while politically unappealing, is endangering Social Security.""I think people realize that was a temporary thing," said Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska.Economists were divided on the economic benefits.The initial tax cut was for only a year, and many Republicans in Congress wanted to let it lapse at the end of 2011. But Obama and Democratic lawmakers successfully fought to extend it through 2012.
Obama, however, didn't include the tax cut in his 2013 budget proposal, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress this year that he saw no reason to extend it again.
This time, the White House isn't pushing for another extension. "That was always intended to be a temporary measure to support job creation and economic growth," Jason Furman, a top White House economic adviser, said recently. "It's not something that we have at this stage called for extending into next year."
Republicans were unenthusiastic about the tax cut to begin with, preferring instead a broad overhaul of the tax code and contending it would weaken Social Security. Now the party is openly opposed to extending the tax break.
"I'm not for that," said Rep. David Camp (R., Mich.), who heads the House's Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax policy. "I don't think we can keep cutting into Social Security." House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) has made similar comments.
Senate Democratic leaders are more cautious, saying they would let the payroll tax cut expire as part of a broader tax deal that would prevent the tax burden from rising for middle-income families. But they're not pushing for an extension, either.
Neither side wanted to really see it extended and most people knew it was temporary. Obama didn't made an oversight, his view on the payroll holiday for 2013 was clear previously. But I guess you have to be able to read to understand that.
July 25, 2012 - Furman's quote publish way back in July.
But I guess if you are completely uninformed of a position stated back in July and bipartisan interest in letting it die, the holiday ending can seem shocking to you. Maybe try being more educated on the issues.Leave a comment:
-
I find it interesting you want to talk about SS when the real problem we have is jobs. But then you're not so non-partisan as you are liberal so that explains that.So you are a fan of robbing from the Social Security trust fund to follow Keynesian strategies? The code should be fixed, simplified, and include a VAT, not following the stimulus Keynesian bullshit forever.
They aren't increasing taxes as much as letting them go back to where they were before the supposedly TEMPORARY payroll tax holiday was put into place. But that's the problem of politics and suggesting temporary measures, uneducated and uninformed people complain about raising things back to where they were when the deadline is reached, even if that was the aim in the first place.
The payroll holiday was less than Making Work Pay which was less than Bush's stimulus checks.
The Making Work Pay credit wasn't much different from the Bush Economic Stimulus Package which gave everyone $600. And the Making Work Pay credit was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [aka $831 billion Stimulus] http://www.irs.gov/uac/The-Making-Work-Pay-Tax-Credit
And it's all Keynesian. Only at least the stimulus checks took from the government's income tax revenues, instead of making the future situation of social security even more troubling. It's kinda like not wanting to add to the deficit problem by robbing from the future retiree's fund.
Yeah, Obama took to Twitter and talked about $40/paycheck to promote its extension, but focused of course on the benefit to the people now instead of the cost to the country's future and particularly future retirees.
Obviously some people were short-sighted enough to support it.
Increasing taxes does not increase the amount of jobs we create in the private sector. That is the real problem.Leave a comment:
-
I Still think rather than spend a couple of trillion on "stimulus" we should have had a 1 year total personal income and pay roll tax holiday. you want to stimulate an economy that would have been one way to do it, and would have been cheaper than what we have been up too the last 4 years.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: