View Full Version : The ultimate question is a simple one.
threlayer
08-18-2009, 08:05 PM
If you are in favor of people becoming wealthy , honestly of course, then why do you consistently favor policies that inhibit wealth creation and expand the size and role of government ? Aside from bribery, kickbacks and other corruption ( which I'm sure you oppose ) who ever got rich thanks to the government ? Please don't cite the Homestead Act or Interstate Highways and the like. People still needed their OWN talents and efforts to become wealthy.
I'll tell you my opinion on that. No one (NO ONE) is talented enough, smart enough, lucky enough, or deserving enough to be earning millions of dollars per year. NO ONE. This is just big business politics. Further, NO ONE needs that kind of income. It is a slap in the face to everyone who actually does good for humanity either thru his/her good works or ideas that develop into good works, even thru others. Someone, say a biochemist, who develops a vaccine that cures a dreaded disease, and just wants to keep working on other bio-ideas, is more deserving of a big income than his lawyer CEO who just knows marketing, management, and finance tricks. Yes, the biochemist didn't keep 5,000 people working on producing that vaccine and earning an income as the CEO did. But the CEO had no actual talent to make that product either. He merely utilized the talent of people who are ACTUALLY talented enough to complete that good work. Well, thats a talent all right, but its not a talent that is worth 100 times the pay of the people who did the work.
What's I'm saying is that that our compensation system is very badly screwed up because of power grabs on top of power grabs. Even when those who grab power have little talent for doing anything else.
As for who does the real spending" ( defined broadly ) in this country, it is really those making $100,000 a year and more. They are UPPER middle class. Their spending as a share of GDP dwarfs that of everyone else. Robert Samuelson laid it out very well in a recent NEWSWEEK column. I'm sorry I don't have a direct link.... But what do they spend it on? Primarily on things to amuse themselves selfishly. To the 'trickle down theory' if you can't hold it in, piss trickles down too.
eagle2
08-18-2009, 10:33 PM
You owe Melonie an apology. You have deliberately distorted what she has said re: China, trade policy and related issues. She has NEVER advocated paying American workers like the Chinese. Quite the contrary. She has simply pointed out modern economic realities which include a Chinese economy that has relatively low INDUSTRIAL wages ( including lots of prison labor ); minimal environmental regulation; a deliberately undervalued currency designed to boost exports and other policies that make them an economic and political challenge.
Melonie has consistently argued against the minimum wage, stating that it gives unskilled workers artificially high wages and the true value of their labor is what unskilled workers in Asia are earning ($1 - $2 an hour). I interpret this as saying American unskilled workers should be paid the same as unskilled workers in Asia.
Melonie,
Please correct me if my understanding is wrong, and if this is not your position, what do you think unskilled workers in the US should be paid?
eagle2
08-18-2009, 11:43 PM
If you are in favor of people becoming wealthy , honestly of course, then why do you consistently favor policies that inhibit wealth creation and expand the size and role of government ? Aside from bribery, kickbacks and other corruption ( which I'm sure you oppose ) who ever got rich thanks to the government ? Please don't cite the Homestead Act or Interstate Highways and the like. People still needed their OWN talents and efforts to become wealthy.
How do I consistently favor policies that inhibit wealth creation and expand the size and role of government?
Practically everyone living in this country that is rich, got rich thanks to the government, either directly or indirectly. Our government created the environment that makes it possible for anyone to become rich in this country. Our government creates and enforces the laws that make it possible for people to become rich, such as property rights. Our government defends our country from foreign invaders. Our government builds and maintains our transportation system that businesses use to transport their products. Our government funds public school education and provides a significant amount of funding for colleges and universities along with financial assistance for students attending them.
As for who does the real "spending" ( defined broadly ) in this country, it is really those making $100,000 a year and more. They are UPPER middle class. Their spending as a share of GDP dwarfs that of everyone else. Robert Samuelson laid it out very well in a recent NEWSWEEK column. I'm sorry I don't have a direct link.
Households that earn more than $100,000 make up about 15% of total households in the US. I would bet that the 85% of households making less than $100,000 buy a lot more automobiles than the 15% who make over $100k, buy or rent a lot more houses/apartments, and buy a lot more products from large retailers like Walmart.
And btw, you haven't bothered to lay out what YOU think the Japanese ought to have done to "fix" their financial system.
They need to make their banks and corporations transparent and they need to let their banks and businesses that are bankrupt, go bankrupt, instead of keeping it hidden. The Japanese government isn't willing to go through the short-term pain this would cause. Instead they would rather just keep spending large amounts of money on public works projects to provide jobs.
Eric Stoner
08-19-2009, 07:05 AM
I'll tell you my opinion on that. No one (NO ONE) is talented enough, smart enough, lucky enough, or deserving enough to be earning millions of dollars per year. NO ONE. This is just big business politics. Further, NO ONE needs that kind of income. It is a slap in the face to everyone who actually does good for humanity either thru his/her good works or ideas that develop into good works, even thru others. Someone, say a biochemist, who develops a vaccine that cures a dreaded disease, and just wants to keep working on other bio-ideas, is more deserving of a big income than his lawyer CEO who just knows marketing, management, and finance tricks. Yes, the biochemist didn't keep 5,000 people working on producing that vaccine and earning an income as the CEO did. But the CEO had no actual talent to make that product either. He merely utilized the talent of people who are ACTUALLY talented enough to complete that good work. Well, thats a talent all right, but its not a talent that is worth 100 times the pay of the people who did the work.
What's I'm saying is that that our compensation system is very badly screwed up because of power grabs on top of power grabs. Even when those who grab power have little talent for doing anything else.
But what do they spend it on? Primarily on things to amuse themselves selfishly. To the 'trickle down theory' if you can't hold it in, piss trickles down too.
When you figure out how to suspend natural inequalities, please let me know. When you figure out how to equalize I.Q., energy levels, physical health, social skills, character, ambition, good looks, TALENT and even just plain LUCK, then and ONLY then will we ever have the kind of world that makes you happy.
Nothing you have ever posted illustrates better how angry and discontented you must be. The jealousy and envy must be eating you alive. Shall we do away with the Olympics because not everyone who competes can win the gold ? Shall we start a rotation system so that eventually every NFL team gets to play in the Super Bowl ? How should we decide how much an artist can be paid for a painting; or how much Beyonce should get for selling out the Staples Center ?
Let's limit the publishing and lecturing that Krugman and Stiglitz can do and how many films Michael Moore can produce and enjoy the corollary benefits.
With your biochemist example, that creepy, good for nothing lawyer CEO FINANCED the research that enabled the biochemist to develop the vaccine. HE took the risk that the research would pan out. HE paid the staff. HE bought the computers and the lab rats and paid for their care and feeding. HE paid the utiliites and the taxes and kept the Xox in the Xerox. According to your hypo he kept 5,000 people employed. Why shouldn't he benefit ?
Eric Stoner
08-19-2009, 07:11 AM
Melonie has consistently argued against the minimum wage, stating that it gives unskilled workers artificially high wages and the true value of their labor is what unskilled workers in Asia are earning ($1 - $2 an hour). I interpret this as saying American unskilled workers should be paid the same as unskilled workers in Asia.
Melonie,
Please correct me if my understanding is wrong, and if this is not your position, what do you think unskilled workers in the US should be paid?
O.K. I take you at your word and as you know, I disagree with Melonie and generally agree with you about the minimum wage. I don't know that she EVER advocated using the Chinese wage scale here in the U.S.
That being said, it ought to be kept in mind that the "minimum wage" is really a straw man for BOTH sides of the debate. Most people who START at that wage rate do not STAY at that rate. Even the majority of those who work at Wal-Mart and Burger King earn MORE within a year of being hired.
Eric Stoner
08-19-2009, 07:40 AM
How do I consistently favor policies that inhibit wealth creation and expand the size and role of government?
Practically everyone living in this country that is rich, got rich thanks to the government, either directly or indirectly. Our government created the environment that makes it possible for anyone to become rich in this country. Our government creates and enforces the laws that make it possible for people to become rich, such as property rights. Our government defends our country from foreign invaders. Our government builds and maintains our transportation system that businesses use to transport their products. Our government funds public school education and provides a significant amount of funding for colleges and universities along with financial assistance for students attending them.
Households that earn more than $100,000 make up about 15% of total households in the US. I would bet that the 85% of households making less than $100,000 buy a lot more automobiles than the 15% who make over $100k, buy or rent a lot more houses/apartments, and buy a lot more products from large retailers like Walmart.
They need to make their banks and corporations transparent and they need to let their banks and businesses that are bankrupt, go bankrupt, instead of keeping it hidden. The Japanese government isn't willing to go through the short-term pain this would cause. Instead they would rather just keep spending large amounts of money on public works projects to provide jobs.
Haven't you argued for higher taxes and MORE governement regulation ?
Don't you support Cap & Trade; oppose "Drill, Drill, Drill" and believe in the "Green Myth" i.e. that Green Tech will create and not destroy jobs ?
We agree that government has created conditions that have enabled wealth creation. That's what it is supposed to do.
That 15% of the population does 34% of the spending ( according to 2007 stats ). Folks making $350,000 a year account for 1.4% of the population but pay 45.2% of the income taxes. They also do a disproportionate share of our society's investing and charitable giving.
I think that you and other crypto socialists do not understand that as a society becomes more competitive and more meritocratic that income inequality rises BUT so does the overall wealth.
At present we are dealing with a Great Recession that followed a 25 year period when PRIVATE consumption as a percentage of GDP increased from around 60% to a high of 70% in 2007. ( See Michael Walker writing in the Wilson Quarterly .) Previously, from the end of W.W. II to 1983, private consumption as a % of GDP stayed with a very narrow range ( 61-63 % ). If, as Walker and others argue, we revert to the prior statistical norm and in 2007 personal consumption was NOT 70% but instead was only the upper end of the pre-existing norm at 63% then instead of a $13.8 Trillion GDP, we would have had a $12.8 trillion GDP.
In 2007, our savings rate was ZERO. Now it is 7%. That means Americans are consuming LESS so that to maintain economic growth we MUST have INCREASED investment. That will only happen if we, at the least, maintain current tax rates. Before they can invest it, that dirty, rotten, stinking investor class has to have it and they'll only have it IF the various governments let them keep it.
There are some who do not want private citizens to do the investing and charitable giving. They think government can and should do it to promote inter alia "equality" defined as equal dependence of almost everyone on governement for almost everything.
threlayer
08-19-2009, 08:31 PM
When you figure out how to suspend natural inequalities, please let me know. When you figure out how to equalize I.Q., energy levels, physical health, social skills, character, ambition, good looks, TALENT and even just plain LUCK, then and ONLY then will we ever have the kind of world that makes you happy. WOW Are you off-base here or what? From each according to his abilities (extracting work); to each according to his contributions (reward). I have no notions of equalizing people, just rewards realistically according to contributions.
Nothing you have ever posted illustrates better how angry and discontented you must be. The jealousy and envy must be eating you alive. Shall we do away with the Olympics because not everyone who competes can win the gold ? Shall we start a rotation system so that eventually every NFL team gets to play in the Super Bowl ? How should we decide how much an artist can be paid for a painting; or how much Beyonce should get for selling out the Staples Center ? No. Competition is a good stressor that keeps people working at or near their best; that competition can be interpersonal or intrapersonal. My discontent is that our system of compensation leads to many other people's discontent and to the often inflated personalities of the top executives. And that leads to the idea of personal superiority falsely deserving over-the-top rewards, like a monarch. This inequity in turn leads to people being pissed off, being distracted by destructive office politics, and not working cooperatively at their best. And finally that leads to this country not being as efficient and effective as we need to be. I would expect that you could see that yourself unless you are entrenched in it. I'm thinking well beyond myself.
Also, Eric, I think you're getting just a bit too personal, since you don't know me from Adam, not my background, my talents, my influences, or even my age.
Let's limit the publishing and lecturing that Krugman and Stiglitz can do and how many films Michael Moore can produce and enjoy the corollary benefits.Whaaaa?
With your biochemist example, that creepy, good for nothing lawyer CEO FINANCED the research that enabled the biochemist to develop the vaccine. HE took the risk that the research would pan out. HE paid the staff. HE bought the computers and the lab rats and paid for their care and feeding. He paid the utiliites and the taxes and kept the Xox in the Xerox. According to your hypo he kept 5,000 people employed. Why shouldn't he benefit ? No, the CEO didn't finance it, nor did he pay for anything out of his pocket; the shareholders and investors did. He should get paid well if he did his work well, not just overpaid because he is coordinating the work of so many others. Besides he is not the only one coordinating work. He is may be a smart guy and was doing his work competently, but he only did his work; he didn't figure out the critical chemistry, how to test it, how to mass produce it, nor even how to market/distribute it. He delegated that work; he just coordinated other peoples' efforts and managed money that came in from other products. He didn't pay the staff, not with his money, but he hired administrative people so that the creative people could work unimpeded by administrivia. He used his talents the same as others used theirs. Everyone used his/her talents; those who were successful and worked hard and well with others got rewarded better than those who were not able to.
You are really OFF-BASE here with my attitudes. You are traditional trying to keep the status quo and I am progressive always looking for better ways. No wonder our ideas clash so frequently.
threlayer
08-19-2009, 09:43 PM
...In 2007, our savings rate was ZERO. Now it is 7%. That means Americans are consuming LESS so that to maintain economic growth we MUST have INCREASED investment. That will only happen if we, at the least, maintain current tax rates. Before they can invest it, that dirty, rotten, stinking investor class has to have it and they'll only have it IF the various governments let them keep it....
<dirty, rotten, stinking investor class> I believe you're really over-acting your role here. A lot of investing is done by middle class people thru 401-k and IRAs and mutual funds (or individual securities); in turn the specialists invest the funds for us. But it does take saving first. So that may work out. Let's hope the spend-spend-spend society is dead for time being; we need the savers, for one thing most of that saved money stays in the US.
Eric Stoner
08-20-2009, 07:13 AM
WOW Are you off-base here or what? From each according to his abilities (extracting work); to each according to his contributions (reward). I have no notions of equalizing people, just rewards realistically according to contributions.
No. Competition is a good stressor that keeps people working at or near their best; that competition can be interpersonal or intrapersonal. My discontent is that our system of compensation leads to many other people's discontent and to the often inflated personalities of the top executives. And that leads to the idea of personal superiority falsely deserving over-the-top rewards, like a monarch. This inequity in turn leads to people being pissed off, being distracted by destructive office politics, and not working cooperatively at their best. And finally that leads to this country not being as efficient and effective as we need to be. I would expect that you could see that yourself unless you are entrenched in it. I'm thinking well beyond myself.
Also, Eric, I think you're getting just a bit too personal, since you don't know me from Adam, not my background, my talents, my influences, or even my age.
Whaaaa?
No, the CEO didn't finance it, nor did he pay for anything out of his pocket; the shareholders and investors did. He should get paid well if he did his work well, not just overpaid because he is coordinating the work of so many others. Besides he is not the only one coordinating work. He is may be a smart guy and was doing his work competently, but he only did his work; he didn't figure out the critical chemistry, how to test it, how to mass produce it, nor even how to market/distribute it. He delegated that work; he just coordinated other peoples' efforts and managed money that came in from other products. He didn't pay the staff, not with his money, but he hired administrative people so that the creative people could work unimpeded by administrivia. He used his talents the same as others used theirs. Everyone used his/her talents; those who were successful and worked hard and well with others got rewarded better than those who were not able to.
You are really OFF-BASE here with my attitudes. You are traditional trying to keep the status quo and I am progressive always looking for better ways. No wonder our ideas clash so frequently.
When you're right, you're right. I personalized and that was wrong of me and I apologize.
Leaving aside the philosophical repugnance I feel for socialism, how do you propose that we create a wage scale or compensation system that will make you happy ?
If you are arguing against paying executives outlandish salaries and bonuses when their corporations do poorly, I agree with you. Afaic that is up to the Bd. of Directors and the shareholders. Nobody argues for merit based systems more than I do.
Perhaps I was misunderstanding you but whenever someone argues for greater income "equality" my inclination is to ask : "Why stop there ?" Why not limit output? Why not limit how many films Mr. Moore can produce or how many books someone like Krugman can write ? The corollary benefits would be greater civility and less disinformation in the public discourse. All three of my examples are vicious factual delinquents. How would our dancer friends like it if they had to pool all their lap and table dance money, all their VIP money, and all their tips and take home an equal share with all the other dancers ?
There are things about the status quo of which I approve because they have been proven to work. When someone comes up with an idea that makes sense I can and will support it. Unlike FDR, I am NOT willing to engage in experimentation for it's own sake.
You didn't make it clear in your hypo but most CEO's of start-ups do invest their own money. And if successful, they may take their compnaies public and reap the benefits. Btw, I assume your hypothetical CEO is doing SOMETHING to justify his compensation. That he is using his leadership skills and vision to set down policies that work and benefit everyone at the company. That he knows how to find and hire the talent necessary to develop the new products and market same.
Eric Stoner
08-20-2009, 07:17 AM
<dirty, rotten, stinking investor class> I believe you're really over-acting your role here. A lot of investing is done by middle class people thru 401-k and IRAs and mutual funds (or individual securities); in turn the specialists invest the funds for us. But it does take saving first. So that may work out. Let's hope the spend-spend-spend society is dead for time being; we need the savers, for one thing most of that saved money stays in the US.
The investing done by those making less than 100k per year is dwarfed by those making more than that amount. Secondly, much of the investing of the lower income groups is "done for them". Their employers pay it for them or they are part of company or union pension plans that in turn invest the contributions.
threlayer
08-20-2009, 08:54 AM
The best work is done by those dedicated to the output of their work, and not by those who think the only significant motivator is the money they receive. Work is work; retirement is retirement. That is the extreme version of the "ME" generation, which I was never part of.
If you are arguing against paying executives outlandish salaries and bonuses when their corporations do poorly, I agree with you. Afaic that is up to the Bd. of Directors and the shareholders.Unfortunately we are still in the throws of the 1800s about exploitive salaries. BoDs etc still approve high salaries as a status thing and tradition, even though it makes little rational sense. As a result supply/demand often dictates such outlandish salaries -- like if Mariano Rivera gets a really high salary for his single inning closings, or Steve Jobs for his dedication to visioneering, why can't I get a much higher salary for working more than full-time and my dedication to getting a high salary?
How do we get there from here? I don't think we can any longer. Just the knowledge of how stupidly we're doing it may help if the choices ever come. Example: take a big chunck of excessive executive salaries and put it back into R&D, which is how we stay ahead of the Chinese (or other competition). I illustrated this in my other furniture company hypothetical last week.
Status quo things work often only because of momentum, not because they are the right and socially responsible things to do. I'm sure we all know that somewhere in the back of our minds.
You didn't make it clear in your hypo but most CEO's of start-ups do invest their own money.I wasn't limiting this to a startup; it could be q big corporation and the same principles would apply, though the numbers would change. Startup financing usually involves several (or many) people, as well as the enterprneur. I know people who do this type of investing.
Eric Stoner
08-20-2009, 09:36 AM
The best work is done by those dedicated to the output of their work, and not by those who think the only significant motivator is the money they receive. Work is work; retirement is retirement. That is the extreme version of the "ME" generation, which I was never part of.
Unfortunately we are still in the throws of the 1800s about exploitive salaries. BoDs etc still approve high salaries as a status thing and tradition, even though it makes little rational sense. As a result supply/demand often dictates such outlandish salaries -- like if Mariano Rivera gets a really high salary for his single inning closings, or Steve Jobs for his dedication to visioneering, why can't I get a much higher salary for working more than full-time and my dedication to getting a high salary?
How do we get there from here? I don't think we can any longer. Just the knowledge of how stupidly we're doing it may help if the choices ever come. Example: take a big chuck of excessive executive salaries and put it back into R&D, which is how we stay ahead of the Chinese (or other competition). I illustrated this in my other furniture company hypothetical last week.
Status quo things work often only because of momentum, not because they are the right and socially responsible things to do. I'm sure we all know that somewhere in the back of our minds.
I wasn't limiting this to a startup; it could be q big corporation and the same principles would apply, though the numbers would change. Startup financing usually involves several (or many) people, as well as the enterprneur. I know people who do this type of investing.
There is greater vigilance now toward executive salaries than previously. Personally, I think all bonuses should be paid in stock.
The primary reason Rivera gets paid $10 million a year ( or whatever he gets ) for working one inning at time is because his talent ,skill and consistent performance is unique enough so that he can command such a salary. Jobs founded Apple Computer and popularized the personal computer, did he not ?
The really troubling thing about your POV is the value you place on "social responsibility". Except for obeying the law, corporations have NONE. Their sole duty is to make money for the shareholders. Whether they are short-sighted or take a longer view in doing so is a fair question and where many of them have run into trouble. In other words "market share" need not be the "be all and end all" as with your furniture company hypo.
threlayer
08-20-2009, 02:34 PM
This is what I said, taking the attitude of an executive. "If some people get higher salaries why can't I? I ought to have that status too."
So, corporations have no social responsibility; their only responsibility is to make money for their owners?
I know a guy named Guido from Utica that used help his fam, err, corporation do that.
Actually corporations do have that, as a collective responsibility of their owners and employees. Yeah, their owners don't givvadam because they are only interested in their own dividends or capital gains. But corporations often care about 'goodwill' which has some enumerative value on the balance sheet. Further many corporations do have a Charter than directs some degree of community involvement. So it is not quite that simple and self-centered.
eagle2
08-20-2009, 09:17 PM
Haven't you argued for higher taxes and MORE governement regulation ?
Don't you support Cap & Trade; oppose "Drill, Drill, Drill" and believe in the "Green Myth" i.e. that Green Tech will create and not destroy jobs ?
When our government has been running deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars year after year, it's obvious taxes are too low. Our country was much better off before Bush's tax cuts than after.
I support having a good environment. I want to breathe clean air. I will never understand this conservative obsession with wanting to destroy the environment. I can't say I support Cap & Trade exactly as it's written, but I support any law that will improve the environment and is not unrealistic. If it were up to me, I would eliminate all coal-powered plants and replace them with nuclear power, natural gas, wind, and solar energy. If there's a slight increase in the cost of electricity, it's well worth it. I already get my electricity from a nuclear power plant and my electric bills are not very high.
We agree that government has created conditions that have enabled wealth creation. That's what it is supposed to do.
That 15% of the population does 34% of the spending ( according to 2007 stats ). Folks making $350,000 a year account for 1.4% of the population but pay 45.2% of the income taxes. They also do a disproportionate share of our society's investing and charitable giving.
That means the other 85% does 66% of the spending. Which do you think has a greater impact on the economy? In addition, increasing the income of the bottom 85% will have a bigger effect on their habits than a similar increase on the top 15%. If Bill Gates' income were to increase by a few million dollars a year, I doubt it would have any impact on his spending habits. If someone making $40 - $50,000 a year were to get an increase of $1-$2,000, it could have an impact on their spending. It might be enough for them to decide to get a new car or some new furniture.
I think that you and other crypto socialists do not understand that as a society becomes more competitive and more meritocratic that income inequality rises BUT so does the overall wealth.
Just because someone isn't a conservative ideologue, doesn't make them a socialist or crypto socialists, as conservative ideologues would like to believe,
In general, countries with the biggest income inequalities, such as Haiti, are the poorest countries, while countries where incomes are more equal, such as Switzerland, are better off. Here is a map of the world showing which countries have the most and least income inequality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_Human_Development_Repo rt_2007-2008.png
Notice which ones have the most inequality (in red and pink), and which ones have the least (in green)
At present we are dealing with a Great Recession that followed a 25 year period when PRIVATE consumption as a percentage of GDP increased from around 60% to a high of 70% in 2007. ( See Michael Walker writing in the Wilson Quarterly .) Previously, from the end of W.W. II to 1983, private consumption as a % of GDP stayed with a very narrow range ( 61-63 % ). If, as Walker and others argue, we revert to the prior statistical norm and in 2007 personal consumption was NOT 70% but instead was only the upper end of the pre-existing norm at 63% then instead of a $13.8 Trillion GDP, we would have had a $12.8 trillion GDP.
In 2007, our savings rate was ZERO. Now it is 7%. That means Americans are consuming LESS so that to maintain economic growth we MUST have INCREASED investment. That will only happen if we, at the least, maintain current tax rates. Before they can invest it, that dirty, rotten, stinking investor class has to have it and they'll only have it IF the various governments let them keep it.
Investors aren't going to invest if there is nothing to invest in. Businesses aren't going to invest to expand their business if people aren't buying products. Again, if there aren't any buyers, you can't have sellers. Conservatives don't seem to be able to understand this concept.
threlayer
08-22-2009, 09:40 AM
Taxes and spending ought to be in balance. Politics changes all that.
Another thing -- spending is done all year long, but taxes come in on a scheduled basis, meaning that you can pass legistation and spend on an uncertain income. But overall there is no theoretical reason why they cannot be in balance at least during an administration.
Melonie
08-22-2009, 03:24 PM
When our government has been running deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars year after year, it's obvious taxes are too low.
ever consider for two seconds that another philosophy would be equally effective ... i.e. when our gov't has been running deficits in the hundreds of Billions that government spending might be too high ?
Eric Stoner
08-24-2009, 07:06 AM
When our government has been running deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars year after year, it's obvious taxes are too low. Our country was much better off before Bush's tax cuts than after.
I support having a good environment. I want to breathe clean air. I will never understand this conservative obsession with wanting to destroy the environment. I can't say I support Cap & Trade exactly as it's written, but I support any law that will improve the environment and is not unrealistic. If it were up to me, I would eliminate all coal-powered plants and replace them with nuclear power, natural gas, wind, and solar energy. If there's a slight increase in the cost of electricity, it's well worth it. I already get my electricity from a nuclear power plant and my electric bills are not very high.
That means the other 85% does 66% of the spending. Which do you think has a greater impact on the economy? In addition, increasing the income of the bottom 85% will have a bigger effect on their habits than a similar increase on the top 15%. If Bill Gates' income were to increase by a few million dollars a year, I doubt it would have any impact on his spending habits. If someone making $40 - $50,000 a year were to get an increase of $1-$2,000, it could have an impact on their spending. It might be enough for them to decide to get a new car or some new furniture.
Just because someone isn't a conservative ideologue, doesn't make them a socialist or crypto socialists, as conservative ideologues would like to believe,
In general, countries with the biggest income inequalities, such as Haiti, are the poorest countries, while countries where incomes are more equal, such as Switzerland, are better off. Here is a map of the world showing which countries have the most and least income inequality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_Human_Development_Repo rt_2007-2008.png
Notice which ones have the most inequality (in red and pink), and which ones have the least (in green)
Investors aren't going to invest if there is nothing to invest in. Businesses aren't going to invest to expand their business if people aren't buying products. Again, if there aren't any buyers, you can't have sellers. Conservatives don't seem to be able to understand this concept.
Deficits say to me that we are SPENDING too much and that economic growth is too low.
I'm all in favor of using more nuclear and natural gas. I think wind and solar need to stand on their own two feet without subsidies. Right now the biggest pushers of mythological "clean coal" technology are the Governor of Montana ( Democrat ); Both Senators from West "By God" Virginia ( Dems. and one of whom is certifiably senile) ; plus the Pennsylvania and Ohio senators.
We tried increasing income your way. Remember Bush's tax rebates ? The increase in income was too small to make a difference.
Whether you accept the label or not, the policies you espouse are definitely socialistic.
Are you comparing the U.S. to Haiti ? Or Switzerland for that matter ? The Swiss have a tiny population with a very high per capita income. They don't import millions of poor people a year. They don't have our defense budget.
I agree with you that we need a strong middle class able to buy things. That was MY argument. It is the Democrats who are proposing to raise their taxes to pay for Obamacare among other things.
threlayer
08-24-2009, 08:27 AM
You can put two five hundred pound Sumo wrestlers in a see-saw and they will be in balance. Or you can put two 50 pound 8 year-olds on a see-saw and they will be in balance.
It all depends on just what you want to put into balance. That is a public choice, but seems to me the balance is very necessary, even if one is a Republican or a war is in progress or you need healthcare.
eagle2
08-26-2009, 07:20 PM
Deficits say to me that we are SPENDING too much and that economic growth is too low.
No, it doesn't. There weren't deficits before Bush's tax cuts. No matter how low the tax rates are, you can make the same statement above, therefore, according to your logic tax rates can never be too low. Obviously if tax rates are reduced to one or two percent, or eliminated all together, you're not going to have anywhere near enough revenue to cover expenses. There is a certain point, where once you get below it, tax revenue will not be able to cover expenses.
We tried increasing income your way. Remember Bush's tax rebates ? The increase in income was too small to make a difference.
When we're in a major economic downturn, giving taxpayers an extra few hundred dollars isn't going to have much of an impact, especially if they're worried about losing their jobs and aren't spending money.
Whether you accept the label or not, the policies you espouse are definitely socialistic.
Socialism is where the means of production are owned by the people (government). I've never advocated that.
Are you comparing the U.S. to Haiti ? Or Switzerland for that matter ? The Swiss have a tiny population with a very high per capita income. They don't import millions of poor people a year. They don't have our defense budget.
My point was that in countries where there are large disparities in income levels, most of the people are very poor, but in countries where there is less disparity, most people have a much higher standard of living.
I agree with you that we need a strong middle class able to buy things. That was MY argument. It is the Democrats who are proposing to raise their taxes to pay for Obamacare among other things.
It is my understanding, the plan will be paid for by taxes on income over $250,000, which will not affect the middle class.
Eric Stoner
08-27-2009, 09:30 AM
No, it doesn't. There weren't deficits before Bush's tax cuts. No matter how low the tax rates are, you can make the same statement above, therefore, according to your logic tax rates can never be too low. Obviously if tax rates are reduced to one or two percent, or eliminated all together, you're not going to have anywhere near enough revenue to cover expenses. There is a certain point, where once you get below it, tax revenue will not be able to cover expenses.
When we're in a major economic downturn, giving taxpayers an extra few hundred dollars isn't going to have much of an impact, especially if they're worried about losing their jobs and aren't spending money.
Socialism is where the means of production are owned by the people (government). I've never advocated that.
My point was that in countries where there are large disparities in income levels, most of the people are very poor, but in countries where there is less disparity, most people have a much higher standard of living.
It is my understanding, the plan will be paid for by taxes on income over $250,000, which will not affect the middle class.
Bush's tax cuts resulted in INCREASED revenues. We got a deficit thanks to fighting two wars plus NCLB plus a Medicare Drug Benefit on top of all the other Federal spending that naturally increased from Clintonian levels. I have NEVER argued for tax levels that are too low. I have argued for a Tax Code designed to enable our government to pay it's bills. I've argued for a flat tax or flatter tax to actually get MORE revenue from the "super-rich" or wealthy.
As to Bush's stimulus package and Obama's non-stimulative stimulus ( GDP just contracted over a full % point last month ), I argued against BOTH of them.
O.K. you're not a socialist. So how much statism ARE you willing to tolerate ?
In countries that have decreased income disparity, they all seem to have relatively small and homogenous populations- Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland etc. If you ask the people living there, they overwhelmingly respond that ambition and success take a back seat to spending time with their families, traveling and socializing. The communal is more important than the individual. Liiberty is traded for security.
As for who will pay what re: Obamacare; tell that to the Obamacans. Geithner and others have publicly admittted that middle class tax increases will be necessary. Even if the rich had 100% of their wealth ( not just their income ) confiscated it would not be enough to pay fcr Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare.
hockeybobby
08-27-2009, 11:10 AM
Even if the rich had 100% of their wealth ( not just their income ) confiscated it would not be enough to pay fcr Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare.
What are you basing this assertion on?
Eric Stoner
08-27-2009, 01:13 PM
What are you basing this assertion on?
It's called math. Currently we have a deficit that is a huge percentage of GDP ( 1.8 Trillion = 12% of GDP ) and it's growing as is the National Debt. We have TRILLIONS in unfunded Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare liabilities. And if we add another trillion on to pay for Obamacare that is just more unfunded liability.
Even if we taxed the rich at 100 % of their INCOME we'd fall well short of the funds needed to pay for all of this. If we confiscated all their wealth we'd still fall short.
Let's say we did that. Who would there be to buy all their stock and scoop up their yachts and mansions ? The Arabs ? They don't have enough money to do it unless we're going to do distressed asset sales. And this all assumes we could overcome all the Constitutional roadblocks. Not !
Earl_the_Pearl
08-27-2009, 02:55 PM
It's called math. Currently we have a deficit that is a huge percentage of GDP ( 1.8 Trillion = 12% of GDP ) and it's growing as is the National Debt.
So when are we going to get a return on our investment that created the Islamic Republic of Iraq? It is time to take OUR oil.
hockeybobby
08-27-2009, 04:16 PM
It's called math. Currently we have a deficit that is a huge percentage of GDP ( 1.8 Trillion = 12% of GDP ) and it's growing as is the National Debt. We have TRILLIONS in unfunded Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare liabilities. And if we add another trillion on to pay for Obamacare that is just more unfunded liability.
Even if we taxed the rich at 100 % of their INCOME we'd fall well short of the funds needed to pay for all of this. If we confiscated all their wealth we'd still fall short.
Let's say we did that. Who would there be to buy all their stock and scoop up their yachts and mansions ? The Arabs ? They don't have enough money to do it unless we're going to do distressed asset sales. And this all assumes we could overcome all the Constitutional roadblocks. Not !
I asked because I'm genuinely curious about how much wealth in actual US dollars the top 1% (in net worth) of citizens of the U.S. actually have. I know they have about 35 to 40% of the wealth of the nation, but I wondered what that was in actual dollars. I've googled around but I'm not getting a real number, just percentages. Not talking income, but actual wealth.
eagle2
08-27-2009, 11:00 PM
Bush's tax cuts resulted in INCREASED revenues. We got a deficit thanks to fighting two wars plus NCLB plus a Medicare Drug Benefit on top of all the other Federal spending that naturally increased from Clintonian levels. I have NEVER argued for tax levels that are too low. I have argued for a Tax Code designed to enable our government to pay it's bills. I've argued for a flat tax or flatter tax to actually get MORE revenue from the "super-rich" or wealthy.
No they didn't. Tax revenue actually fell the year after Bush's tax cuts were implemented. Most years tax revenue increases without making any changes to the tax rates, since the economy and population grow each year. Tax revenue was far below what was projected before Bush's tax cuts.
The Iraq war was not included in the Federal budget so it's funding did not count towards the deficit. The Iraq war was funded by a supplemental budget. If it was included in the Federal budget, the deficits would have been much higher.
The Medicare drug program didn't go into effect until several years after Bush's tax cuts went into effect and we were still having deficits back then.
If lower tax rates means more revenue, how was the US able to fight a major war in Vietnam and pay for Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, without running up huge deficits when tax rates were much higher, but during the Reagan and Bush 43 administrations, we spent much less money on welfare programs and had huge deficits when tax rates were much lower?
O.K. you're not a socialist. So how much statism ARE you willing to tolerate ?
I support free enterprise, but I also support the right of government to regulate industry to ensure consumers are protected from unsafe products, workers are protected from unsafe working condition, and people can breathe clean air and drink clean water. I also support government intervention to prevent an economic collapse, rather than stand by and do nothing.
In countries that have decreased income disparity, they all seem to have relatively small and homogenous populations- Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland etc. If you ask the people living there, they overwhelmingly respond that ambition and success take a back seat to spending time with their families, traveling and socializing. The communal is more important than the individual. Liiberty is traded for security.
Switzerland's population is far from homogenous. There are large numbers of people in Switzerland with French ethnicity, Italian ethnicity, in addition to German ethnicity. All of the countries you mentioned above have per-capita GDP's close to the US. I think Switzerland and Norway's are even higher. Citizens of these countries have just as much liberty as in the US.
As for who will pay what re: Obamacare; tell that to the Obamacans. Geithner and others have publicly admittted that middle class tax increases will be necessary. Even if the rich had 100% of their wealth ( not just their income ) confiscated it would not be enough to pay fcr Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare.
The plan isn't even finalized.
Earl_the_Pearl
08-28-2009, 12:43 AM
Medicare Drug Benefit
That is a benefit for the drug companies as we pay full price for the drugs. Every piss ant insurance company negotiate wholesale prices for drugs except for Medicare.
Melonie
08-28-2009, 03:18 AM
^^^ actually big Pharma stands to benefit from the National Health Care bill. Thus they have been spending big money to advertise in favor of the bill. as well as making major political contributions to democrats as well as hiring Obama connected lobbyists.
Earl_the_Pearl
08-28-2009, 03:34 AM
^^^ actually big Pharma stands to benefit from the National Health Care bill. Thus they have been spending big money to advertise in favor of the bill. as well as making major political contributions to democrats as well as hiring Obama connected lobbyists.
The drug companies are trying to keep their monopoly and Medicare bonanza.
The partnership is complicated because many Democrats in both the House and Senate oppose key goals of the drug industry. Liberals, in particular, favor the importation of prescription medicine from Canada and other countries. They also want the government to have authority to negotiate directly with companies for lower drug prices under Medicare.
Eric Stoner
08-29-2009, 12:49 PM
No they didn't. Tax revenue actually fell the year after Bush's tax cuts were implemented. Most years tax revenue increases without making any changes to the tax rates, since the economy and population grow each year. Tax revenue was far below what was projected before Bush's tax cuts.
The Iraq war was not included in the Federal budget so it's funding did not count towards the deficit. The Iraq war was funded by a supplemental budget. If it was included in the Federal budget, the deficits would have been much higher.
The Medicare drug program didn't go into effect until several years after Bush's tax cuts went into effect and we were still having deficits back then.
If lower tax rates means more revenue, how was the US able to fight a major war in Vietnam and pay for Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, without running up huge deficits when tax rates were much higher, but during the Reagan and Bush 43 administrations, we spent much less money on welfare programs and had huge deficits when tax rates were much lower?
I support free enterprise, but I also support the right of government to regulate industry to ensure consumers are protected from unsafe products, workers are protected from unsafe working condition, and people can breathe clean air and drink clean water. I also support government intervention to prevent an economic collapse, rather than stand by and do nothing.
Switzerland's population is far from homogenous. There are large numbers of people in Switzerland with French ethnicity, Italian ethnicity, in addition to German ethnicity. All of the countries you mentioned above have per-capita GDP's close to the US. I think Switzerland and Norway's are even higher. Citizens of these countries have just as much liberty as in the US.
The plan isn't even finalized.
I love how you cherry pick a few facts and then insist on looking at them in a vacuum. Here are the numbers from the Federal Government ;
FY 01- Revenues - 3.7 Trillion Deficit- 128 billion
02- 3.4 Trillion and 157 billion.
03- 3.7 Trillion and 377 billion
04- 3.6 Trillion and 412 billion
05- 4 Trillion and 318 billion
06- 4.4 Trillion and 248 billion
07- 4.7 Trillion and 160 billion.
In 2001 we were in a recession and Bush's tax cuts had not yet taken effect. 2002 was AFTER 9/11 when our economy was seriously disrupted. When you look at the out years you can clearly see increasing revenues and declining deficits.
Johnson repeatedly ignored advice to raise taxes to pay for the Vietnam War AND the Great Society. We did have deficits and we had inflation that really came home to roost in the Nixon/ Ford years culminating in double digits under Carter.
Congress deliberately used inflation and the resulting "bracket creep" to fund it's irresponsible social spending.
You support government "rights". Boy do you have things bassackwards. Government does not have rights. It has POWERS. Limited and enumerated under the Constitution. I support all the things you listed EXCEPT economic meddling. History proves that government interference does more harm than good.
None of the countries listed have had economic growth rates to match ours. All have much higher unemployment. Btw, they calculate their rates differently than we do . Students in Denmark can be neither in school nor employed but still receive government funding.
Citizens in most of those countries definitely do not have as much individual liberty as we do. Their speech is curtailed to avoid upsetting others. They are taxed more. They are regulated more. Individual achievement and creativity is tempered by concern for the collective as opposed to the individual good. As I said, they trade liberty for security.
eagle2
08-30-2009, 10:23 PM
I love how you cherry pick a few facts and then insist on looking at them in a vacuum. Here are the numbers from the Federal Government ;
FY 01- Revenues - 3.7 Trillion Deficit- 128 billion
02- 3.4 Trillion and 157 billion.
03- 3.7 Trillion and 377 billion
04- 3.6 Trillion and 412 billion
05- 4 Trillion and 318 billion
06- 4.4 Trillion and 248 billion
07- 4.7 Trillion and 160 billion.
In 2001 we were in a recession and Bush's tax cuts had not yet taken effect. 2002 was AFTER 9/11 when our economy was seriously disrupted. When you look at the out years you can clearly see increasing revenues and declining deficits.
While 9/11 was a serious human tragedy, it had little long-term effect on the economy. By 2002, our economy had returned to normal. As I stated before, most years tax revenue increases without doing anything to the tax rates. That is what happened in the years following Bush's tax cuts, after tax revenue significantly decreased. Without Bush's tax cuts, we would have had bigger and bigger surpluses instead of smaller and smaller deficits.
Johnson repeatedly ignored advice to raise taxes to pay for the Vietnam War AND the Great Society. We did have deficits and we had inflation that really came home to roost in the Nixon/ Ford years culminating in double digits under Carter.
Congress deliberately used inflation and the resulting "bracket creep" to fund it's irresponsible social spending.
During the Johnson Administration, the national debt decreased significantly relative to GDP. From 1950 - 1980, the national debt decreased relative to GDP, every decade. Then Reagan passed his tax cuts and the national debt grew significantly relative to GDP during the 1980's. After Bush's tax cuts, the national debt again grew significantly relative to GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#History
This shows tax cuts caused revenue decreases. That's what "supply side" economics does, runs up debt.
You support government "rights". Boy do you have things bassackwards. Government does not have rights. It has POWERS. Limited and enumerated under the Constitution. I support all the things you listed EXCEPT economic meddling. History proves that government interference does more harm than good.
I don't see much difference between the terms giving government the power to do certain things and giving government the right to do certain things. It's a matter of semantics. What is your proof that government interference does more harm than good? Do you think the results were better when Herbert Hoover let all of the major banks fail than when government intervened to prevent this from happening under Bush and Obama?
None of the countries listed have had economic growth rates to match ours. All have much higher unemployment. Btw, they calculate their rates differently than we do . Students in Denmark can be neither in school nor employed but still receive government funding.
They have similar gdp and similar growth rates. I think I remember, not too long ago, before the financial crisis, Denmark's unemployment rate was around 3%. Switzerland's unemployment rate is now at 3.9%, compared to 9% in the US.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=CHF
Citizens in most of those countries definitely do not have as much individual liberty as we do. Their speech is curtailed to avoid upsetting others. They are taxed more. They are regulated more. Individual achievement and creativity is tempered by concern for the collective as oposed to the individual good. As I said, they trade liberty for security.
Who says they don't? Since when is their speech curtailed to avoid upsetting others? Nobody prevented Danish newspapers from printing cartoons that infuriated much of the Muslim world.
Eric Stoner
08-31-2009, 09:13 AM
While 9/11 was a serious human tragedy, it had little long-term effect on the economy. By 2002, our economy had returned to normal. As I stated before, most years tax revenue increases without doing anything to the tax rates. That is what happened in the years following Bush's tax cuts, after tax revenue significantly decreased. Without Bush's tax cuts, we would have had bigger and bigger surpluses instead of smaller and smaller deficits.
During the Johnson Administration, the national debt decreased significantly relative to GDP. From 1950 - 1980, the national debt decreased relative to GDP, every decade. Then Reagan passed his tax cuts and the national debt grew significantly relative to GDP during the 1980's. After Bush's tax cuts, the national debt again grew significantly relative to GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#History
This shows tax cuts caused revenue decreases. That's what "supply side" economics does, runs up debt.
I don't see much difference between the terms giving government the power to do certain things and giving government the right to do certain things. It's a matter of semantics. What is your proof that government interference does more harm than good? Do you think the results were better when Herbert Hoover let all of the major banks fail than when government intervened to prevent this from happening under Bush and Obama?
They have similar gdp and similar growth rates. I think I remember, not too long ago, before the financial crisis, Denmark's unemployment rate was around 3%. Switzerland's unemployment rate is now at 3.9%, compared to 9% in the US.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=CHF
Who says they don't? Since when is their speech curtailed to avoid upsetting others? Nobody prevented Danish newspapers from printing cartoons that infuriated much of the Muslim world.
The out years of Bush's tax cuts cloearly show revenues going up. Over a trillion dollars in just four years.
You keep chattering about deficits and the National debt without ever looking at SPENDING. If revenues went up by more than a trillion ( as they did ) but we went from surplus to deficit, how the hell else could it happen unless spending increased in an amount greater than the revenue increase ? What kind of arithmetic do you want to use to come up with another explanation ?
The European socialist countries you love so much do NOT have economic growth or unemployment rates historically comparable to ours over the last decade or so.
Switzerland avoided a major recession because inter alia they did not have sub-prime mortgages; or two wars to pay for.
In Sweden you cannot say anything critical of gays or homosexuals. Many Eurpoean countries are having problems because Muslims cannot be criticized but many of their citizens do not want to live under Muslim law. Or even see it implemented. And they do not, by and large, have the robust debate on these and other issues that one would expect or prefer. Mostly, you can't keep what you earn. It's taxed away.
there is no incentive to work harder or longer. It'll just go to the government.
Eric Stoner
08-31-2009, 12:38 PM
Some more FACTS for you to ponder :
JFK'S Tax Cuts- Revenues went from 99.7 billion in 1962 to 116.8 billion in 1965.
GDP went from 567.6 billion to 752.9 billion during the same time frame.
Reagan's Tax Cuts- Revenues doubled in ten years from $517.1 billion in 1980 to over $1 trillion in 1992 during a recession year. GDP went from $2.7 trillion to $6.244 trillion during the same time period.
Clinton's Tax Increases and Tax Cuts- Revenues went from a little over 1 Trillion in 1992 to over 2 trillion in 2000. The really big jump was from 1996 when revenue was 1.453 trillion to 2000 and the aforementioned 2 plus trillion.
Bush's tax cuts took GDP from 10 trillion in 2001 to 14.3 trillion in 2008.
eagle2
08-31-2009, 07:27 PM
Some more FACTS for you to ponder :
JFK'S Tax Cuts- Revenues went from 99.7 billion in 1962 to 116.8 billion in 1965.
GDP went from 567.6 billion to 752.9 billion during the same time frame.
Reagan's Tax Cuts- Revenues doubled in ten years from $517.1 billion in 1980 to over $1 trillion in 1992 during a recession year. GDP went from $2.7 trillion to $6.244 trillion during the same time period.
Clinton's Tax Increases and Tax Cuts- Revenues went from a little over 1 Trillion in 1992 to over 2 trillion in 2000. The really big jump was from 1996 when revenue was 1.453 trillion to 2000 and the aforementioned 2 plus trillion.
Your facts are inaccurate. Your numbers are in current dollars, not constant dollars. In addition, Ronald Reagan was President from 1980 - 1988 and the decade which Reagan was President ended in 1990, not 1992. Your source dishonestly goes up to 1992 for Reagan, which includes Bush's tax increase. In addition, since your source is using current dollars, it makes the numbers look much higher, the further out you go, since the dollar decreases in value each year. If you go by constant dollars, the numbers for Reagan and Bush aren't very impressive. The forth column on the chart on the page below shows tax revenue in constant dollars:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
During the Reagan Presidency, from 1981 - 1988, tax revenue went from $1,077.4 billion to $1,235.6 billion in constant 2000 dollars. During the Clinton Presidency, from 1993 - 2000, which included a significant tax increase, tax revenue went from $1,323.2 billion to $2,025.5 billion in constant 2000 dollars. During the Bush 43 Presidency, from 2001 - 2008, tax revenue went from $1,945.9 billion to $2,006.0 billion in constant 2000 dollars. These numbers clearly show that tax revenue was much lower as a result of tax cuts during the Reagan and Bush 43 presidencies. During the Reagan Presidency, tax revenue increased less than 20 percent and during the Bush 43 presidencies, tax revenue barely changed, while during the Clinton Presidency, tax revenue increased more than 50%.
Bush's tax cuts took GDP from 10 trillion in 2001 to 14.3 trillion in 2008.
Again, your source dishonestly uses current dollars instead of constant dollars. In constant 2000 dollars, the GDP went from $10 trillion to less than $12 trillion. The economy actually grew faster in the years preceding Bush's tax cuts than in the years after as this chart clearly shows:
http://perotcharts.com/2009/02/current-dollar-and-real-gross-domestic-product-1930-2008/
In addition, the economic growth during the Bush Presidency came at the cost of more than $5 trillion added to the national debt, whereas before Bush's tax cuts, we were able to reduce the national debt as a result of budget surpluses. By any measurement, Bush's tax cuts were a failure. We would have been much better off without them. We would have also been much better off without Reagan's massive tax cuts. About the only thing we have to show for them is an $11 trillion national debt.
Eric Stoner
09-01-2009, 06:33 AM
Your facts are inaccurate. Your numbers are in current dollars, not constant dollars. In addition, Ronald Reagan was President from 1980 - 1988 and the decade which Reagan was President ended in 1990, not 1992. Your source dishonestly goes up to 1992 for Reagan, which includes Bush's tax increase. In addition, since your source is using current dollars, it makes the numbers look much higher, the further out you go, since the dollar decreases in value each year. If you go by constant dollars, the numbers for Reagan and Bush aren't very impressive. The forth column on the chart on the page below shows tax revenue in constant dollars:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
During the Reagan Presidency, from 1981 - 1988, tax revenue went from $1,077.4 billion to $1,235.6 billion in constant 2000 dollars. During the Clinton Presidency, from 1993 - 2000, which included a significant tax increase, tax revenue went from $1,323.2 billion to $2,025.5 billion in constant 2000 dollars. During the Bush 43 Presidency, from 2001 - 2008, tax revenue went from $1,945.9 billion to $2,006.0 billion in constant 2000 dollars. These numbers clearly show that tax revenue was much lower as a result of tax cuts during the Reagan and Bush 43 presidencies. During the Reagan Presidency, tax revenue increased less than 20 percent and during the Bush 43 presidencies, tax revenue barely changed, while during the Clinton Presidency, tax revenue increased more than 50%.
Again, your source dishonestly uses current dollars instead of constant dollars. In constant 2000 dollars, the GDP went from $10 trillion to less than $12 trillion. The economy actually grew faster in the years preceding Bush's tax cuts than in the years after as this chart clearly shows:
http://perotcharts.com/2009/02/current-dollar-and-real-gross-domestic-product-1930-2008/
In addition, the economic growth during the Bush Presidency came at the cost of more than $5 trillion added to the national debt, whereas before Bush's tax cuts, we were able to reduce the national debt as a result of budget surpluses. By any measurement, Bush's tax cuts were a failure. We would have been much better off without them. We would have also been much better off without Reagan's massive tax cuts. About the only thing we have to show for them is an $11 trillion national debt.
If you don't like my numbers, please take it up with the Federal Government which is where I got them. They are published by the Treasury Dept and the Office of OMB.
I ran Reagan's numbers through the Bush years because that was before Clinton's tax increases took effect. Despite Bush I's dunderheaded tax increase, we still were left with substantially lower rates than under Carter.
If you want to use constant dollars then Bush's deficits are smaller than in current dollars. During Bush II we had low inflation and lower unemployment than under Clinton.
Again, as you always do, you ignore JFK's tax cuts and Clinton's tax cuts. And the massive beneficial effects. And, you also refuse to look at Federal spending increases. Either in current or in constant dollars.
As long as we're on the subject, would you please explain how tax increases promote economic growth ? We didn't get any thanks to Hoover's increases, or FDR's or Clinton's.
eagle2
09-01-2009, 11:04 PM
If you don't like my numbers, please take it up with the Federal Government which is where I got them. They are published by the Treasury Dept and the Office of OMB.
regardless of where your numbers came from, you were using current dollars, not constant dollars. Current dollars is not an accurate measurement when comparing dollar amounts from two different time periods. It's going to make the numbers from later periods look much higher than earlier periods.
I ran Reagan's numbers through the Bush years because that was before Clinton's tax increases took effect. Despite Bush I's dunderheaded tax increase, we still were left with substantially lower rates than under Carter.
and if you look at tax revenues in constant dollars, you will see tax revenue increased more during the 1950's, 1960's, and 1990's than it did during the 1980's.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
if tax cuts increase tax revenue, why is it after the biggest tax cuts, which were made during the 1980's, tax revenue increased less than it did during every other decade from 1950 - 2000, except during the 1970's?
If you want to use constant dollars then Bush's deficits are smaller than in current dollars. During Bush II we had low inflation and lower unemployment than under Clinton.
The deficits were still $200 - $300 billion dollars most years of the Bush Presidency, which is not a very good record.
Unemployment was not lower during Bush II than it was under Clinton. Unemployment fell below 4% during the Clinton Administration. It never got anywhere near as low as that during Bush II.
http://thinkingmeat.net/images/unemp89to08sm.gif
Again, as you always do, you ignore JFK's tax cuts and Clinton's tax cuts. And the massive beneficial effects. And, you also refuse to look at Federal spending increases. Either in current or in constant dollars.
There weren't massive beneficial effects. The economy was already doing well before both tax cuts. In both cases, taxes were cut because government was already bringing in enough revenue that we could afford to make those tax cuts. The tax cuts weren't made just for the sake of cutting taxes, like Reagan and Bush's were, which ended up resulting in trillions of dollars of debt.
As long as we're on the subject, would you please explain how tax increases promote economic growth ? We didn't get any thanks to Hoover's increases, or FDR's or Clinton's.
I never said they did. It depends on how the taxes are spent by the government. What does not promote economic growth over the long term is cutting taxes and running up trillions of dollars of debt. Eventually we're going to have to pay back all of this debt, and what do we have to show for it?
Eric Stoner
09-02-2009, 07:17 AM
regardless of where your numbers came from, you were using current dollars, not constant dollars. Current dollars is not an accurate measurement when comparing dollar amounts from two different time periods. It's going to make the numbers from later periods look much higher than earlier periods.
and if you look at tax revenues in constant dollars, you will see tax revenue increased more during the 1950's, 1960's, and 1990's than it did during the 1980's.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
if tax cuts increase tax revenue, why is it after the biggest tax cuts, which were made during the 1980's, tax revenue increased less than it did during every other decade from 1950 - 2000, except during the 1970's?
The deficits were still $200 - $300 billion dollars most years of the Bush Presidency, which is not a very good record.
Unemployment was not lower during Bush II than it was under Clinton. Unemployment fell below 4% during the Clinton Administration. It never got anywhere near as low as that during Bush II.
http://thinkingmeat.net/images/unemp89to08sm.gif
There weren't massive beneficial effects. The economy was already doing well before both tax cuts. In both cases, taxes were cut because government was already bringing in enough revenue that we could afford to make those tax cuts. The tax cuts weren't made just for the sake of cutting taxes, like Reagan and Bush's were, which ended up resulting in trillions of dollars of debt.
I never said they did. It depends on how the taxes are spent by the government. What does not promote economic growth over the long term is cutting taxes and running up trillions of dollars of debt. Eventually we're going to have to pay back all of this debt, and what do we have to show for it?
Once again you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I NEVER tried to compare the raw dollar amounts from different eras. Only the percentage INCREASE in GDP and increase in revenues after tax cuts. Which I did. In spades.
Kennedy's tax cuts did not get passed until 1963 and the effects were not felt until after he was dead i.e. 1964 and onward. In fact it is arguable which did more to alleviate poverty ? ; LBJ's Great Society or the booming economy of the mid to late 1960's. The revenue increases under Clinton came about through 1. A dirty trick that Clinton and the Congress played in 1993 by making his tax increases retroactive to 1992. A lot of people front-loaded income after Der Slickmeister's election in 1992 anticipating higher tax rates. And then got stuck paying higher taxes on it. 2. His Capital Gains and business tax cuts after which revenues really took off fed by the Dot.com and Wall Street Booms.
Tax revenue increased as much as it did during the 1970's thanks to something called INFLATION. As I explained, Congress deliberately promoted inflation to devalue Federal debt and to increase gross revenues using bracket creep. The "village idiot", otherwise known as Arthur Burns ( Chairman of the Federal Reserve ) kept increasing the money supply and cutting interest rates in a vain effort to avoid a recession. We ended up with both high inflation and a doozy of a recession.
While Bush never hit Clinton's low in unemployment, we did have lower unemployment after Bush's tax cuts went into effect. Look at YOUR own chart !
The economy was "doing well" ? Are you serious ? JFK's tax cuts pulled us out of Eisenhower's recession. Before Reagan's tax cuts we had double digit unemployment and stagnant growth. Before Bush's cuts we had increasing unemployment and a stagnant economy. Bush's tax cuts did not even start to take effect until 2003. After Clinton's cuts, an already recovered economy ( after the short and shallow Bush I recession ) really took off.
Would you please print and send your last paragraph to Obama and the Dems ? The deficit under Obama will be $ 2 trillion higher than earlier estimates over the next decade bringing the total increase in our debt under OBAMA to $ 10 trillion. The revision was based solely on increased estimates of interest on the national debt and increased spending like their dud of a stimulus package. Under the new estimates, debt as a % of GDP will go from 40% at the end of last year to 80% in 2019 and accelerate from there. Just as a point of reference, at the end of Reagan's second term, the debt to GDP ratio was 40% . That is the total National Debt vs. one years's GDP. Obama's deficits as a % of GDP in the next few years will be worse than anything Reagan or Bush rang up and might challenge FDR's W.W. II deficits.
eagle2
09-03-2009, 08:13 PM
Once again you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I NEVER tried to compare the raw dollar amounts from different eras. Only the percentage INCREASE in GDP and increase in revenues after tax cuts. Which I did. In spades.
and your percentages were based on current dollars, not constant dollars.
Kennedy's tax cuts did not get passed until 1963 and the effects were not felt until after he was dead i.e. 1964 and onward. In fact it is arguable which did more to alleviate poverty ? ; LBJ's Great Society or the booming economy of the mid to late 1960's. The revenue increases under Clinton came about through 1. A dirty trick that Clinton and the Congress played in 1993 by making his tax increases retroactive to 1992. A lot of people front-loaded income after Der Slickmeister's election in 1992 anticipating higher tax rates. And then got stuck paying higher taxes on it. 2. His Capital Gains and business tax cuts after which revenues really took off fed by the Dot.com and Wall Street Booms.
and you're assuming that the booming economy came from tax cuts, while ignoring the significant increase in government spending on the war in Vietnam and LBJ's great society, which contributed greatly to economic growth. If cutting taxes is the biggest factor in spurring economic growth, why did the economy grow much faster during the Johnson Presidency than it did during the Reagan Presidency, when Ronald Reagan passed much bigger tax cuts?
Tax revenue increased as much as it did during the 1970's thanks to something called INFLATION. As I explained, Congress deliberately promoted inflation to devalue Federal debt and to increase gross revenues using bracket creep. The "village idiot", otherwise known as Arthur Burns ( Chairman of the Federal Reserve ) kept increasing the money supply and cutting interest rates in a vain effort to avoid a recession. We ended up with both high inflation and a doozy of a recession.
The numbers I used for tax revenue were constant dollars (2000 dollars). Constant dollars are not affected by inflation. That is the point of using constant dollars instead of current dollars.
While Bush never hit Clinton's low in unemployment, we did have lower unemployment after Bush's tax cuts went into effect. Look at YOUR own chart !
We were coming out of a recession. Unemployment usually goes down when we come out of a recession. It would have gone down anyway, without Bush's tax cuts. The Fed. lowered interest rates which helped us out of the recession. Economic growth might have been slightly slower without the tax cuts, but we would not have increased the national debt by trillions of dollars. And look at the end result of Bush's economic policies.
The economy was "doing well" ? Are you serious ? JFK's tax cuts pulled us out of Eisenhower's recession. Before Reagan's tax cuts we had double digit unemployment and stagnant growth. Before Bush's cuts we had increasing unemployment and a stagnant economy. Bush's tax cuts did not even start to take effect until 2003. After Clinton's cuts, an already recovered economy ( after the short and shallow Bush I recession ) really took off.
The economy was growing at 4% during the Kennedy Administration. The reason why we had double digit unemployment was because the Fed raised the prime rate to 18% to bring an end to inflation. Once the Fed started lowering the interest rates, unemployment was going to come down with or without tax cuts.
Would you please print and send your last paragraph to Obama and the Dems ? The deficit under Obama will be $ 2 trillion higher than earlier estimates over the next decade bringing the total increase in our debt under OBAMA to $ 10 trillion. The revision was based solely on increased estimates of interest on the national debt and increased spending like their dud of a stimulus package. Under the new estimates, debt as a % of GDP will go from 40% at the end of last year to 80% in 2019 and accelerate from there. Just as a point of reference, at the end of Reagan's second term, the debt to GDP ratio was 40% . That is the total National Debt vs. one years's GDP. Obama's deficits as a % of GDP in the next few years will be worse than anything Reagan or Bush rang up and might challenge FDR's W.W. II deficits.
The current deficit is the result of the economic crisis Obama was handed. Obama took over as President during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Preventing an economic collapse is more important than balancing the budget.
Eric Stoner
09-04-2009, 09:02 AM
Rotflmao. You are a scream. It doesn't matter what I do, you insist on your own numbers and your own facts.
According to you, tax rates have no effect on the economy as a whole.
You insist on looking ONLY at the short term dip in revenues after Reagan and Bush's tax cuts while ignoring the out years. And the lousy economy then and there existing.
You refuse to acknowledge the effects of JFK and Clinton's tax cuts while just about every economist and historian agrees with me and disagrees with you.
Now, NOW you acknowledge the Fed and such things as the money supply as important economic factors.
Melonie and I had to explain to you how the value of the dollar affects commodity prices regardless of overall supply and demand.
Your use of "constant' dollars is irrelevant. What we are looking at is increased revenue ( it went up in BOTH constant and current dollars ); increased GDP ( I know, I know, according to you tax rates have no effect on GDP unless they go up of course ) and declining deficits as a % of GDP.
Now you want to give Obama a pass and blame it all on Bush. That means we have to ignore
Obama's spending. We have to pretend that his stimulus package is working ( latest unemployment figure is up to 9.7 % ); and ignore building inflation ; and the increase in gold prices; and the rebound in oil prices mostly due to the declining dollar ( demand is DOWN and supply is steady ) and pretend that there will be a magical economic turnaround and that debt will not hit 80% of GDP or higher. Please explain to me HOW you expect Obama to turn things around ?
HOW will inflation be brought under control ?
WHAT will Obama and Geithner do to support the dollar ?
How will the deficits be tamed ? And please don't tell me tax increases. Going back to Clinton's rates will be a spit in the ocean. We'd have to raise the top rate to 70 % for EVERYONE making at least $75,000 a year to seriously affect the out year deficits assuming no spending cuts. That will do wonders for unemployment but we gotta break a few eggs to make the omelet, right ? Oh I forgot. According to you tax rates won't have any effect on economic growth.
Costa Rica here I come. Mel ! Throw another shrimp on the barbie !
Melonie
09-04-2009, 12:48 PM
Costa Rica here I come. Mel ! Throw another shrimp on the barbie !
What was it you said about offering to lend me your 'hose' ?
HOW will inflation be brought under control ?
WHAT will Obama and Geithner do to support the dollar ?
I would guess that they'll wind up relying on the same ( and arguably only remaining ) method that worked in the 1930's ... WW3 ! Nothing like a global crisis to attract international US dollar buyers. But this time, If the Japanese PM-elect actually implements his announced US dollar policy, the international buyers may decide to reach out for the Japanese Yen instead.
Adelina
09-04-2009, 06:17 PM
WW3 where?
hockeybobby
09-04-2009, 06:23 PM
What's the inflation situation in Costa Rica?
Melonie
09-05-2009, 12:26 AM
^^^ actually, I'm not in Costa Rica ... but rather closeby. I'll allow the IMF to answer your basic question ...
(snip)"Medium Term Prospects For Costa Rican Economy Promising: IMF
08/24/09 10:13 pm (EST)
(RTTNews) - The International Monetary Fund in a report on Monday said the recent signs of a turnaround in economic activity in Costa Rica, and a somewhat more favorable perspectives for external demand, point to a gradual recovery to the economy, going forward. Moreover, it said the medium-term prospects remained promising.
The IMF expects the economy to contract 1.5% this year, but grow by 2.3% next year. Further, the lender expects the inflation to continue to decline, to reach 5% by the year end.
Meanwhile, the lender said the medium-term prospects for the economy remained generally promising, with strong institutions and higher investment in human and physical capital providing a solid basis for the resumption of high, well-balanced economic growth.
The IMF said Costa Rica's economy withstood the impact of the global economic and financial crisis relatively well."The strategy to shield the economy from external shocks through fiscal stimulus and the mobilization of contingent external financing has helped preserve confidence and financial stability, and mitigated the decline of the economy", it added."(snip)
There is a bit of truth in your inflation point. Costa Rica has seen a large influx of manufacturing operations geared toward production for export to the US. Along with these new manufacturing operations have come a lot of (former) US and European managers and specialists. Additionally, Costa Rica's 'foreign retiree' program has lured a good number of US and European ex-pats. This in turn did drive up prices for real estate in certain areas, as well as prices for certain 'luxury' items ( well, the native Costa Ricans consider them luxuries anyway !). On the other hand, prices for basic items like local foods, rents, local beer etc. were so comparatively low to begin with that 7% price inflation only meant the difference between a laughably cheap bargain and a ridiculously cheap bargain !
WW3 where?
Of relevance in this particular thread might be North Korea lobbing a couple of Nukes at the South Koreans and the Japanese ... which in turn would cause both of these countries to refocus their economies away from export manufacturing to the USA and towards military manufacturing for their own consumption, as well as motivating a whole lot of foreign investors to pull Japanese and South Korean investments in favor of 'safer' harbors like the US dollar.
Not wanting to turn too far towards the political in DD, but the 'tin foil hat' crowd would tell you that there was probably a reason (other than pure negligence) why US gov't reactions to recent North Korean missile tests and nuclear development have been so 'low key' !
!
eagle2
09-05-2009, 12:59 AM
Rotflmao. You are a scream. It doesn't matter what I do, you insist on your own numbers and your own facts.
No, I go by the facts. I provided references showing the exact numbers for tax revenue and I based it on constant dollars, which is the most honest way to compare numbers from different times.
According to you tax rates have no effect on the economy as a whole.
I never said that. I just don't claim that tax cuts are the end all be all for the economy. Conservative ideologues like yourself worship tax cuts.
You insist on looking ONLY at the short term dip in revenues after Reagan and Bush's tax cuts while ignoring the out years. And the lousy economy then and there existing.
No, I'm looking at the entire term. Tax revenue did not increase as much during the Reagan Administration as it did during the Johnson Administration and Clinton Administration, even though tax rates were higher. Please read my next sentence very carefully as I have already stated this multiple times:
Tax revenue goes up most years without changing the tax rates.
You continue to act as if tax revenue increasing from one year to the next is a rare occurrence and you act as if tax revenue increases during the Reagan and Bush Administrations were unusual occurrences. They weren't. Tax revenues have increased during every Presidency since Hoover left office.
You refuse to acknowledge the effects of JFK and Clinton's tax cuts while just about every economist and historian agrees with me and disagrees with you.
No they don't. The only ones who agree with you are conservative ideologues like yourself, who worship tax cuts, and believe tax cuts are the answer to every economic problem. For JFK, the economy was already going through an expansion by the time the tax cuts were passed.
http://www.msjc.edu/econ/jfk022502.htm
(snip)
So we got the tax cut, signed in February 1964. And we got prolonged economic expansion. But the connection between these facts is unclear. By current measurements, the expansion began in February 1961 and continued until December 1969. That is, it began well before the tax cut and was prolonged at the end for expenditures for the Vietnam War.
(snip)
Under President Clinton, the economy was growing faster before the capital gains tax cuts than after. The biggest annual economic growth during the Clinton Presidency was in 1997 when the GDP growth was 4.498%.
http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html
The capital gains tax cuts was not passed until August of that year and the economy grew faster in the first half of 1997, before the tax cuts were passed, than it did in the second half, after the tax cuts were passed.
Now, NOW you acknowledge the Fed and such things as the money supply as important economic factors.
Melonie and I had to explain to you how the value of the dollar affects commodity prices regardless of overall supply and demand.
No it doesn't. There are many factors affecting the price of commodities. If the value of the dollar goes down 10%, it doesn't automatically mean that the price of every single commodity is going to increase by 10%.
Your use of "constant' dollars is irrelevant. What we are looking at is increased revenue ( it went up in BOTH constantr and current dollars ); increased GDP ( I know, I know, according to you tax rates have no effect on GDP unless they go up of course ) and declining deficits as a % of GDP.
Again, tax revenue normally increases each year without changing tax rates. Why is this simple concept so difficult for you to understand? Increasing tax revenue over an 8 year period is not a spectacular achievement.
Deficits increased as a percent of GDP during the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
Now you wnat to give Obama a pass and blame it all on Bush. That means we have to ignore
Obama's spending. We have to pretend that his stimulus package is working ( latest unemployment figure is up to 9.7 % ); and ignore building inflation ; and the increase in gold prices; and the rebound in oil prices mostly due to the declining dollar ( demand is DOWN and supply is steady ) and pretend that there will be a magical economic turnaround and that debt will not hit 80% of GDP or higher. Please explain to me HOW you expect Obama to turn things around ?
No, you want to ignore that we were already going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression at the time Obama took over. The economy is not going to turn around over night. If you had even a basic understanding of simple economic concepts, you would know that the policies of the President of the US take a significant amount to take effect in an economy the size of the US. The economy doesn't change overnight. My Introduction to Economics professor compared it to turning around an aircraft carrier. When the captain gives the order for the carrier to turn, it's not going to happen the instant he gives the order. It takes some time for a ship that size to turn.
HOW will inflation be brought under control ?
There is very little inflation right now.
WHAT will Obama and Geithner do to support the dollar ?
Ask Obama and Geithner.
How will the deficits be tamed ? And please don't tell me tax increases. Going back to Clinton's rates will be a spit in the ocean. We'd have to raise the top rate to 70 % for EVERYONE making at least $75,000 a year to seriously affect the out year deficits assuming no spending cuts. That will do wonders for unemployment but we gotta break a few eggs to make the omelet, right ? Oh I forgot. According to you tax rates won't have any effect on economic growth.
There aren't any easy answers to get us out of the hole Reagan and Bush dug us into.
Adelina
09-05-2009, 01:36 AM
Of relevance in this particular thread might be North Korea lobbing a couple of Nukes at the South Koreans and the Japanese ... which in turn would cause both of these countries to refocus their economies away from export manufacturing to the USA and towards military manufacturing for their own consumption, as well as motivating a whole lot of foreign investors to pull Japanese and South Korean investments in favor of 'safer' harbors like the US dollar.
Hong Kong recalls gold reserves, any connection here?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hong-kong-recalls-gold-reserves-from-london-2009-09-03?link=kiosk
Melonie
09-05-2009, 02:33 AM
^^^ the 'tin foil hat' crowd would undoubtedly tell you that there is indeed a connection ... i.e. Hong Kong recalling international gold reserves, as well as a very recent Chinese legal change intended to cause more international gold to physically flow into China ( see the new thread I just posted ) being preparatory moves for something big on the horizon.
One also sees anecdotal stuff, such as this posting on a professional investor's BBS ...
(snip)"My son has friends who have businesses in North Vietnam. He says that there are cities for which it appears that dollars have been declared by what appear to be official sources not to be used as currency. Put this nugget into the highly speculative category for now, but in the context of all the other currency and gold moves, it makes me say...hmmmmm... "(snip)
Additionally, subscriber services are advising clients of a second liquidity crisis building rapidly ...
(snip)"Revived Crisis Brewing? A confluence of signals has aroused my gut instincts of an intensifying systemic liquidity crisis, and possible pending reaction by the Federal Reserve and/or the U.S. Treasury. Since this only is at the gut level, I am just waving a cautionary flag and publishing this as an Alert.
First, growth in broad money supply has continued to falter. Although it will be another week or two before I have the data to publish a preliminary SGS-Ongoing M3 estimate, weekly reports by the Fed have shown the major M3 components (all seasonally adjusted) of M2, institutional money funds and large time deposits to be in general decline, suggesting that August will show a second consecutive monthly decline — at an accelerating pace — and that year-to-year growth is likely to slow from July’s level of 5.2% to something closer to 4% in August. Beyond being a negative for the economy, in the ongoing systemic solvency crisis, slowing broad money growth often has signaled rising systemic stress, foreshadowing intensification in the crisis that in turn has led to Federal Reserve or Treasury response."(snip)
As to whether or not all of these separate developments really add up to something big and real is anyone's guess at this point.
~
xfatrabbitx
09-05-2009, 09:29 PM
anarchy in the us!
Eric Stoner
09-07-2009, 11:23 AM
No, I go by the facts. I provided references showing the exact numbers for tax revenue and I based it on constant dollars, which is the most honest way to compare numbers from different times.
I never said that. I just don't claim that tax cuts are the end all be all for the economy. Conservative ideologues like yourself worship tax cuts.
No, I'm looking at the entire term. Tax revenue did not increase as much during the Reagan Administration as it did during the Johnson Administration and Clinton Administration, even though tax rates were higher. Please read my next sentence very carefully as I have already stated this multiple times:
Tax revenue goes up most years without changing the tax rates.
You continue to act as if tax revenue increasing from one year to the next is a rare occurrence and you act as if tax revenue increases during the Reagan and Bush Administrations were unusual occurrences. They weren't. Tax revenues have increased during every Presidency since Hoover left office.
No they don't. The only ones who agree with you are conservative ideologues like yourself, who worship tax cuts, and believe tax cuts are the answer to every economic problem. For JFK, the economy was already going through an expansion by the time the tax cuts were passed.
http://www.msjc.edu/econ/jfk022502.htm
(snip)
So we got the tax cut, signed in February 1964. And we got prolonged economic expansion. But the connection between these facts is unclear. By current measurements, the expansion began in February 1961 and continued until December 1969. That is, it began well before the tax cut and was prolonged at the end for expenditures for the Vietnam War.
(snip)
Under President Clinton, the economy was growing faster before the capital gains tax cuts than after. The biggest annual economic growth during the Clinton Presidency was in 1997 when the GDP growth was 4.498%.
http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html
The capital gains tax cuts was not passed until August of that year and the economy grew faster in the first half of 1997, before the tax cuts were passed, than it did in the second half, after the tax cuts were passed.
No it doesn't. There are many factors affecting the price of commodities. If the value of the dollar goes down 10%, it doesn't automatically mean that the price of every single commodity is going to increase by 10%.
Again, tax revenue normally increases each year without changing tax rates. Why is this simple concept so difficult for you to understand? Increasing tax revenue over an 8 year period is not a spectacular achievement.
Deficits increased as a percent of GDP during the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
No, you want to ignore that we were already going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression at the time Obama took over. The economy is not going to turn around over night. If you had even a basic understanding of simple economic concepts, you would know that the policies of the President of the US take a significant amount to take effect in an economy the size of the US. The economy doesn't change overnight. My Introduction to Economics professor compared it to turning around an aircraft carrier. When the captain gives the order for the carrier to turn, it's not going to happen the instant he gives the order. It takes some time for a ship that size to turn.
There is very little inflation right now.
Ask Obama and Geithner.
There aren't any easy answers to get us out of the hole Reagan and Bush dug us into.
Oh I wish you would. Please let me know when you're ready to start.
If I am a "conservative ideologue" what does that make you ? This is nothing more than argument by labeling. I support a flat tax that will really get the rich to pay their fair share. Who do you think the biggest opponents of a flat or flatter tax really are ? Who has controlled the House Ways and Means Committee since 2006 and before that for Forty (40) years from 1954 to 1994? You know do you not, that ALL tax and spending bills must originate in the House ? I support eliminating all the deductions and credits that the super rich love so much and hold so dear. I support gay marriage, oppose capital punishment and think both Bushes were lousy Presidents. Some conservative ideologue I am. I like tax cuts because they WORK ! More money in private hands lets small businesses start; grow and thrive and that creates new jobs and everybody paying taxes results in ( sit down and take a deep breath ) increased revenues.
Revenue increased during Johnson's term. How the hell do you think that happened ? Kennedy's tax cuts got passed in 1963 and started taking effect in 1964. If your economic views are correct then we ought not have had much growth under Clinton because he stopped well short of going back to Nixon/Ford/Carter tax rates. More importantly, you forget or choose to ignore the major slowdown in Clinton's last year in office i.e. 2000; the bursting of the "Dot.com Bubble" that put a real damper on capital gains collections. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you try to look at a few facts that support your argument in a vacuum.
As for commodity prices being affected by the value of the dollar, we never said there was an exact penny for penny correlation BUT the dollar vis a vis other currencies definitely affects the price of what American consumers have to pay for imports. A weak dollar adds to what the laws of supply and demand do to the price of commodities like oil.
Tax revenue increases every year ? Are you serious ? Have you looked at the 2008 and projected 2009 numbers ? Revenue is DOWN ! Did you check and see what happened to revenues after the Carter recession peaked ? How much in taxes do you think unemployed people pay ? or failed businesses ? or stockholders selling at a loss ?
Reagan and Bush had a Democrat House for all twelve years and a Democrat Senate for six out of twelve. Remember ? All spendng bills originate in the House. And if revenue was increasing then we were spending too much money when deficits went up under Reagan and Bush. Even if we ignore the increased defense spending under Reagan, it declined in real terms ( those constant dollars you like so much) at the end of his term. And under Bush I defense spending declined and really dropped under Clinton. Remember the "Peace Dividend " ? That means non-defense spending dramatically increased under all three until Gramm-Rudman was seriously implemented and enforced. that occurred when the Republicans took over the House in 1995.
Right, wrong , fair or unfair, this is "Obama's economy" now. Just like it was "Reagan's economy" after his first six months. Even though you are correct in that Presidential policy takes years to take effect. Name one Obama policy that is working or likely to work over the course of his first term.
As for inflation, you may want to recheck your numbers. Right now the CPI is fine BUT there are building forces like M2 growth, commodity prices, spending, deficits, the weakening dollar and others that will concoct a witch's brew of serious infation within the next year or so. So much attention was paid to fighting deflation by Bernancke that he has ignored the back end of many of his policies and to date has not articulated an exit strategy from his stimulative policies. The inflationary piper always has to be paid when too many dollars are chasing too few goods. Btw, today's gold market opened sharply up; oil up sharply and the dollar is down = I N F L A T I O N !
Obama and Geithner have the primary responsibility for protecting the dollar. I thought you might know because I certainly don't see any action on their part to support the dollar.
Eric Stoner
09-07-2009, 11:32 AM
What was it you said about offering to lend me your 'hose' ?
I would guess that they'll wind up relying on the same ( and arguably only remaining ) method that worked in the 1930's ... WW3 ! Nothing like a global crisis to attract international US dollar buyers. But this time, If the Japanese PM-elect actually implements his announced US dollar policy, the international buyers may decide to reach out for the Japanese Yen instead.
You can borrow my hose, and anything else, as much as you like. Actually, if that houseboy position is still open, then it will be: YOUR hose.