Analysts: Letting Bush tax cuts die would kill recovery...

[Yukon Cornelius]

There is one very real difference.

 

They work.

when?

[WaterMan]

Someone's crazy opinion I found on the vast interwebz

 

The Bush tax cuts never created a lot of jobs, at least not in the United States, because that wasn't the point of the cuts. The main point of the tax cuts was to give corporations 'more money'. They did...billions more. Corporations took that money and began to buy each other out to increase market share. For the most part these mergers resulted in fewer jobs, particularly here in the states. Jobs that were 'created' were for the most part jobs that were transferred to China and other low cost countries while American industry was left to die on the vine. Now that China has a large population of industrial workers with money in their pockets these workers can begin to buy up the product of their labor. Just think...a billion Chinese consumers as compared to our piddling 300 million. Basically the US has been mined out and clear cut and the 'miners' and 'loggers' have moved on leaving destruction in their wake. For those that haven't figured it out yet, the Teapublicans work for the 500 largest corporations.

 

American workers are no more than sheep to be sheared and bought off with waving flags and shaking crosses. Anyone who complains is labeled a 'far left liberal', a socialist or a commie or worst of all, a 'secular humanist' what ever that is! Without a total change in US trade policy, changes that benefit the US wage earner, there will soon be very few wage earners. The chances of that are near zero and even less. With the unions busted and corporations now allowed to spend unlimited money electing tame politicians the American wage earner is totally screwed, friendless and left to twist slowly in the wind. Bummer, eh? When the US goes broke the corporations will still exist, still be rich and powerful and still, through their political pimps, control the police powers of United States.

[gbpfan1231]

Kinda like this guy?

 

http://bernard-madoff-scam.blogspot.com/

and on the other side we have these lovely people....

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/...9h8bigyHVLDvofP

[detlef]

I found a couple of articles from the Cato Institute (reference clearly named so the source can be easily attacked)-- yes, it is a group with a heavy bias to Jeffersonian market-liberal policies:

 

One illustrating tax cuts stimulating economy and increasing tax revenue in the 1920s:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0302-13.pdf

 

And another showing similar analysis of the Bush tax cuts in 2007:

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/novem...-pays-the-taxes

 

 

Figured there wasn't enough factual, data-driven, analytic, well-sourced research available on this side of the argument for people to throw grenades at.

 

Have fun!

Um, I'm not entirely sure we want to mimic the economic policies of the 20s. That sort of blew up in our face in a big way. In fact, that did stand out in the link I found regarding historic rates. That, in the years leading up to the collapse of 29, the tax rate on the highest tier was much lower than it had been or was again for some time.

[Deathpig]

The tax cuts and two wars have done wonders for the economy.

 

Deathpig's author wrote this in 2001 before the tax cuts were put in place:

 

others worry that the plan -- scheduled to take place over ten years -- will cause an 80s style deficit.

 

I wish someone who didn't have a Liberal bias could provide some facts. Oh wait, Stephen Moore worked for the The Heritage Foundation so that's good to see some numbers skewed the other way in favor of his ex boss the late and great Ronald Reagan.

 

Yes, the author was pointing out that people on the other side of the aisle were arguing against the tax cuts because those 'caused the deficit'. If you look carefully, he didn't state that was HIS opinion. Nevermind that in the 1920s, the 1980s, and in the mid 2000s tax revenues went UP. What causes deficits is spending more than you make. If revenues are going up, and you have a deficit, then maybe... JUST MAYBE... you're spending too much.

 

 

when?

 

You should read the links I posted. The ones that show where the 'disappearing' middle class have gone. The ones that show tax revenue increases from cutting taxes. The ones that showed that economic activity and job creation were stimulated via tax cuts. The one that refutes almost every Keynesian concept that the current administration has tried or thought of. The ones that have sourced, data-driven analysis. Then, when you gnash your teeth, you can spend your own 5 minutes on Google to find relevant, factual information to contradict. And then maybe we can have a discussion on facts or the interpretation of facts instead of zingy one-liners and fanciful stories about Teapublicans.

[WaterMan]

Then, when you gnash your teeth, you can spend your own 5 minutes on Google to find relevant, factual information to contradict. And then maybe we can have a discussion on facts or the interpretation of facts instead of zingy one-liners and fanciful stories about Teapublicans.

 

I'm just not really into Googling democratic leaning numbers/stats against republican leaning numbers/stats all day long. There are tons of links to keep arguments over anything political going for weeks.

 

"Do you see this chart? It refutes you."

 

"Well you see this chart from the other Washington paper? It refutes you."

 

My question, maybe someone has the stats to back it up, why if these tax cuts are job creators have we seen this much unemployment under Bush and Obama? Do these tax cuts only work in a perfect world without war and problems?

Edited August 1, 2010 by WaterMan

[Ursa Majoris]

There is one very real difference.

 

They work.

That is true but the sentiment is the same. The tax cuts 10 years ago increased take home pay without anyone having to lift a finger and now the 10 years is up, suddenly the thought of losing the temporary entitlement is anathema.

[The Mucca]

That is true but the sentiment is the same. The tax cuts 10 years ago increased take home pay without anyone having to lift a finger and now the 10 years is up, suddenly the thought of losing the temporary entitlement is anathema.

 

So now it's an entitlement to keep our own money?

The only reason they need to steal more money from us, is because they spend too much. get rid of the waste

and taxes can remain reasonably low, simple as that.

[Ursa Majoris]

So now it's an entitlement to keep our own money?

The only reason they need to steal more money from us, is because they spend too much. get rid of the wastermongering

and taxes can remain reasonably low, simple as that.

Fixed

[Jimmy Neutron]

Fixed

 

There is s lolt of waste too, and you know it.

 

It's sad that we've allowed the government to grow so large and continue to feed a beast to inable to control itself. Too bad so few of us have the ability to withhold those contributions in a form of protest.

[Azazello1313]

this thread added several pages over the weekend (with mucho dumb being tossed around), I'm not going to try and wade through it all.

 

but I just saw this headline, and thought it would be fun....As spending by wealthy weakens, so does economy

 

also, only tangentially related, Electric Car Subsidies As Handouts For the Rich.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Azazello1313

[bpwallace49]

this thread added several pages over the weekend (with mucho dumb being tossed around), I'm not going to try and wade through it all.

 

but I just saw this headline, and thought it would be fun....As spending by wealthy weakens, so does economy

 

also, only tangentially related, Electric Car Subsidies As Handouts For the Rich.

 

A very good article with solid info. I found this to be a great part of the article that shows SOME hope . .

 

Even with recent losses, household net worth has risen 13 percent from its bottom during the recession. Net worth -- the value of assets like homes, checking accounts and investments minus debts like mortgages and credit cards -- grew 2.1 percent in the first quarter.

 

However, net worth would have to grow 21 percent more to regain its pre-recession peak.

 

13% up, but 21% more to go. . . good that it has started rebounding, but very bad that we have so far to go . . .

[Ursa Majoris]

There is s lolt of waste too, and you know it.

Indeed there is. But what is it? Large blocks of waste only, please.

[Perchoutofwater]

That is true but the sentiment is the same. The tax cuts 10 years ago increased take home pay without anyone having to lift a finger and now the 10 years is up, suddenly the thought of losing the temporary entitlement is anathema.

 

You used to be reasonable, but the thought of keeping more of your own money that you earn as an entitlement is laughable.

[Perchoutofwater]

A very good article with solid info. I found this to be a great part of the article that shows SOME hope . .

 

 

 

13% up, but 21% more to go. . . good that it has started rebounding, but very bad that we have so far to go . . .

 

I'm sure that most if not all of that is due to the market going up, so they are making up paper losses.

[bpwallace49]

I'm sure that most if not all of that is due to the market going up, so they are making up paper losses.

 

i dont know about that Perch ,. . . remember when we were talking about companies AND people hoarding cash? The article said how much the savings rate has exploded as well.

 

This isnt "papare", this is real liquidity that they are keeping instead of investing/spending.

[Ursa Majoris]

You used to be reasonable, but the thought of keeping more of your own money that you earn as an entitlement is laughable.

There's far more to it than that as well you know. The bottom line is that the decade is up, as agreed by both parties and now it's time to go back to where we were before, again as agreed.

 

If you want to rat on the deal, you'll have to justify why and where the replacement money is going to come from. Part of the reason for sunsetting the cuts was because they would be unsustainable beyond that time. So, if we're not going to put income tax back where it started - as agreed - what tax shall we raise to make up for it? Presumably it will be one that doesn't affect you.

[Perchoutofwater]

There's far more to it than that as well you know. The bottom line is that the decade is up, as agreed by both parties and now it's time to go back to where we were before, again as agreed.

 

If you want to rat on the deal, you'll have to justify why and where the replacement money is going to come from. Part of the reason for sunsetting the cuts was because they would be unsustainable beyond that time. So, if we're not going to put income tax back where it started - as agreed - what tax shall we raise to make up for it? Presumably it will be one that doesn't affect you.

 

What were we told the top income bracket was going to be when the income tax was shoved down our throat to begin with? What were we told SS and Medicare were going to cost us when they were forced upon us? Why aren't you railing that Obama should repeal the whole thing instead of just the top bracket? Why must the government ever grow? Why not do like the rest of us do who don't have an infinite source of coerced cash, and cut back? Why don't you comment on the Laffler article I posted in it's own thread showing revenue going down when the top bracket is taxed more and revenue going up when the top bracket is taxed less.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Ursa Majoris]

Why aren't you railing that Obama should repeal the whole thing instead of just the top bracket?

Fine by me. IMO, he has set the bar too high at $250k.

[Perchoutofwater]

Fine by me. IMO, he has set the bar too high at $250k.

 

Allow them all to sunset or none of them, would you agree with that, after all that was the deal wasn't it? I'm sure I can count on you to complain about it when he only the top bracket and capital gains are sunset right?

[yo mama]

So now it's an entitlement to keep our own money?

The only reason they need to steal more money from us, is because they spend too much. get rid of the waste

and taxes can remain reasonably low, simple as that.

If by "waste" you mean military spending and social security, then I agree with you. Because those are really the only two items in the federal budget that will have any kind of meaningful impact on the deficit.

 

Please tell me where we can trim a $1,000,000,000 of "waste?"

 

You can't. 54% of our "discretionary spending" is military spending. Of the $1.5 trillion of "mandatory spending" I'm sure there is waste, but not enough restraint the deficient.

 

You could eliminate ALL waste we'd still be forced to: (1) cut perfectly efficient spending; and/or (2) increase tax revenues. That's reality. There is 0% probability that we can get out of this mess by eliminating waste alone. None.

 

ETA: seriously. Look at this mess. We could eliminate ALL defense spending from the 2009 budget and we'd still have deficit. Pfft. Waste.

Edited August 2, 2010 by yo mama

[Azazello1313]

projected federal spending in 2020

[Perchoutofwater]

If by "waste" you mean military spending and social security, then I agree with you. Because those are really the only two items in the federal budget that will have any kind of meaningful impact on the deficit.

 

Please tell me where we can trim a $1,000,000,000 of "waste?"

 

You can't. 54% of our "discretionary spending" is military spending. Of the $1.5 trillion of "mandatory spending" I'm sure there is waste, but not enough restraint the deficient.

 

You could eliminate ALL waste we'd still be forced to: (1) cut perfectly efficient spending; and/or (2) increase tax revenues. That's reality. There is 0% probability that we can get out of this mess by eliminating waste alone. None.

 

ETA: seriously. Look at this mess. We could eliminate ALL defense spending from the 2009 budget and we'd still have deficit. Pfft. Waste.

 

I actually agree with you though I question how much of the "mandatory" spending is actually mandatory. I do think defense and SS need to both be cut way back. I also am on record saying that we do need to have some tax increase to get out of this mess, though I'm not all that willing to do that until such time as others become willing to make cuts. I've said all along I'd be all for raising taxes 1% for every 1% of spending you cut until the debt is paid down, and then cutting taxes by 2% for every 1% spending is increased once the debt is paid.

[yo mama]

I actually agree with you though I question how much of the "mandatory" spending is actually mandatory. I do think defense and SS need to both be cut way back. I also am on record saying that we do need to have some tax increase to get out of this mess, though I'm not all that willing to do that until such time as others become willing to make cuts. I've said all along I'd be all for raising taxes 1% for every 1% of spending you cut until the debt is paid down, and then cutting taxes by 2% for every 1% spending is increased once the debt is paid.

Well, it's "mandatory" because Congress says it is. I think we both agree a lot of that spending isn't "mandatory" in the generally accepted use of that term.

[Ursa Majoris]

Allow them all to sunset or none of them, would you agree with that, after all that was the deal wasn't it? I'm sure I can count on you to complain about it when he only the top bracket and capital gains are sunset right?

Sunset them all. There you go.

 

ETA: That was the intent and IMO it should be carried through. Now, if BOTH parties want to get together and figure out the proper rates for all forms of taxation, then I'd be on board with that.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Ursa Majoris