The Fiscal cliff

[joshh]

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?

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/30/...-a-good-thing/

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.

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.

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.

[rwh11385]

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.

So basically, you really do have zero reading comprehension.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/30/...-a-good-thing/

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.

If by destroy my argument you mean absolutely back it up... and prove again you are clueless.

You might want to spend more time reading critically.

Although you claim that ending the payroll tax cut would hurt employment, Heritage says:

Short-term tax cuts would not increase investment and employment, but they would increase the deficit. That’s not good enough.

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.

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.

[z31maniac]

This is painful.

But keep trying joshh.

[Charlie]

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

[gwb72tii]

actually we have a pool bet going to see how many times rwh uses terms like "stupid, ignorant, uneducated, can't read, clueless" and other terms as a way to win a debate

[BraveUlysses]

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

I'll say it again: dumb enough to be fooled by the church of $cientology for most of his entire life.

[rwh11385]

actually we have a pool bet going to see how many times rwh uses terms like "stupid, ignorant, uneducated, can't read, clueless" and other terms as a way to win a debate

Actually, I used multiple credible sources to support my argument. Try it sometime George.

I explained why he didn't understand it because he couldn't read, was clueless / uneducated about economic theory, and ignorant about what was right or wrong.


But maybe you can explain again why you think my pants are down... Are you now defending Keynesian economics? Or just disregarded the truth or facts to attack my side because of your inherent bias?

[Deadskittles]

So here is a little lesson on Capitalism. Someone gets fucked over. Welcome to the world. And its funny how we are all arguing about money when we all live in a very rich country regardless of your class. (Not including the extremely poor and homeless) Its just sad how there are people living(and dying) on cents per day and here we are arguing about taxes.

EDIT: Not picking sides, just making a point

[gwb72tii]

find a need and fill it

[joshh]

Actually, I used multiple credible sources to support my argument. Try it sometime George.

I explained why he didn't understand it because he couldn't read, was clueless / uneducated about economic theory, and ignorant about what was right or wrong.


But maybe you can explain again why you think my pants are down... Are you now defending Keynesian economics? Or just disregarded the truth or facts to attack my side because of your inherent bias?

I'm going to have to spell it out for you further...
What you've done is use sources and twist as usual. You're trying to equate lowering taxes as only being Keynesian while Conservatives want low taxes as well. Because all you can do is focus on your little argument of that one little Keynesian point of economics theory. But yet Conservatives would like lower taxes all around....permanently. Keep struggling with that one.

[joshh]

This is painful.

But keep trying joshh.

Of course you're going to do you're usual and pop in and post while unable to remain in a thread and make a real point (a rarity for you).
Whether you like it or not this is an increase on taxes for most of the country on their incomes which they haven't seen in two years. Let alone the taxes that were increased on investments, death tax and upper wage earners and we now have a recipe for trouble.

Even Obama was fighting to keep the payroll holiday in place. What they should have done was make it permanent.

[rwh11385]

I'm going to have to spell it out for you further...
What you've done is use sources and twist as usual. You're trying to equate lowering taxes as only being Keynesian while Conservatives want low taxes as well. Because all you can do is focus on your little argument of that one little Keynesian point of economics theory. But yet Conservatives would like lower taxes all around....permanently. Keep struggling with that one.

Are you seriously, even now, not capable of reading the Heritage or Forbes links and understanding you completely miss the point about the difference between marginal and payroll taxes?

How are you going to spell it out for me when it is clear that no matter how many times I've tried to explain it to you in simple terms with multiple sources to back it up that you cannot seem to comprehend it? You are the one who has struggled to read or understand this subject.

As Charlie pointed you, this behavior is typical of you and no matter how lost you are, you are convinced that it's the other person who is wrong.

Read the sources until you actually get that conservatives like supply-side economics which are marginal tax rate cuts, while cutting payroll taxes is a demand-side Keynesian move. I don't know how to break it down more simpler so you can understand.

The issue is you don't apparently know what Keynesian means, nor can you possibly process in your mind that not all taxes influence behavior the same. I'm sorry that you are not capable of reading well or differentiating different things.

[rwh11385]

Of course you're going to do you're usual and pop in and post while unable to remain in a thread and make a real point (a rarity for you).
Whether you like it or not this is an increase on taxes for most of the country on their incomes which they haven't seen in two years. Let alone the taxes that were increased on investments, death tax and upper wage earners and we now have a recipe for trouble.

Even Obama was fighting to keep the payroll holiday in place. What they should have done was make it permanent.

I'm pretty sure that no one needs to make a real point on the issue because it is pretty cut and dry. You are apparently the only one incapable of understanding.


So your plan is to permanently fund Keynesian moves with deficits or making social security insolvent even sooner?

[slammin.e28]

My paycheck was $20 less this week. My gf's was more. Uncle Sam can go pound sand.

[joshh]

Are you seriously, even now, not capable of reading the Heritage or Forbes links and understanding you completely miss the point about the difference between marginal and payroll taxes?

How are you going to spell it out for me when it is clear that no matter how many times I've tried to explain it to you in simple terms with multiple sources to back it up that you cannot seem to comprehend it? You are the one who has struggled to read or understand this subject.

As Charlie pointed you, this behavior is typical of you and no matter how lost you are, you are convinced that it's the other person who is wrong.

Read the sources until you actually get that conservatives like supply-side economics which are marginal tax rate cuts, while cutting payroll taxes is a demand-side Keynesian move. I don't know how to break it down more simpler so you can understand.

The issue is you don't apparently know what Keynesian means, nor can you possibly process in your mind that not all taxes influence behavior the same. I'm sorry that you are not capable of reading well or differentiating different things.

Not at all. Their also talking about long and short term. In the short term it does nothing and that's the point. You're trying to wave a magic wand over the issue. As if tax rates on income are the same on income takers (20% being the same as 35%). As if lowering them at all would be Keynesian. That's nonsense.
As much as you might hate it Conservatives do support low taxes on individuals as well.
Fox news isn't the only business news source concerned about the tax hikes and the effects they might have on this economy.

I'm pretty sure that no one needs to make a real point on the issue because it is pretty clean and dry. You are apparently the only one incapable of understanding.


So your plan is to permanently fund Keynesian moves with deficits or making social security insolvent even sooner?

It isn't Keynesian...lol. You keep thinking that.
It's already insolvent. Do you think your boy racking up a debt of 6.5 trillion in 4 years is helping SS become solvent? How about him making no cuts and adding to the current debt instead?