The Laffer Curve which shows that as taxes increase government revenue goes down.
The recent debate about the super committee shows what the real debate is about; namely tax rates matter. The GOP proposed compromise has caused much apprehension among many Republicans and conservative since it may represent an overall tax increase, but what is missing is that the GOP plan is the beginning of serious tax reform by lowering the overall tax rates. The GOP plan begins with lowering tax rates among individual and businesses while eliminating or reducing selected deductions. The problem for many conservatives is the CBO has scored the GOP as increasing tax revenue, while the big problem for the left is that the upper crust of our society don’t get clipped enough. For the left, the symbolism of seeing the rich’s tax rates going up is more important than if it benefits the economy.
The GOP plan has yet to be fully explored so we don’t know what is in it but one has to understand that CBO scoring is problematic since it underestimates the stimulus of lower marginal tax rates so who knows whether this is really a true tax increase or simply the result of more economic activity due to lower tax rates? The real noise is that the GOP is following on what is the consensus that for any tax reforms to work must include a lower marginal tax rates in exchange for reduction of deductions. The left simply doesn’t care about the consensus and for them; it is about class warfare and screwing the rich. There is very little economic reason for their economic plan for tax rates matter and that has been the lesson for the past three decades.
The left’s argument is that raising tax rates on the rich will return the rates to what it was in the Clinton’s era but this argument fails on three important points. The first is that Clinton did increase tax rates in the first two years of his administration but the economy was already coming out of recession plus what is missing is that in the 90’s, massive free trade agreements along with capital gain tax cuts that were enacted after 1994 midterm election represented significant tax cuts for investors and most Americans. What is overlooked is that Clinton’s major expansion of government spending including Hillary care were defeated and Clinton was forced to the center for the rest of his term.
The second thing is that there are massive tax increases scheduled beyond just the elimination of the Bush Tax cuts. Obamacare includes massive tax increases to fund Obama’s government takeover of health care so when you add those tax cuts on top of what is coming, we are talking far greater taxes imposed on the America economy that even the Clinton Administration implemented plus Clinton was forced to cut taxes on capital gains, so the Clinton era prosperity was not an era propelled by taxing the rich; but by an administration that reformed welfare, cut taxes on investments and slowed the growth of government spending.
Finally, the left;s argument is that Bush’s tax cuts did nothing for job creation is totally false since job expansion continued after Bush’s tax reductions were enacted and unemployment crept toward the 4% rate. The reason for the recession was government policies dealing with housing that imploded the financial system so to blame Bush’s tax reduction for government policies failure is nothing more than desperation by the left as well as rewriting economic history.
The left point that tax rates alone will not resuscitate the economy may be right, but the right has the better solutions than the left whose only solution is to keep spending money and increasing the debt further. The GOP’s ideas of cutting spending, stabilizing the dollar and reducing regulations is far better than Obamanomics which consists of punishing the rich and spending money that we no longer have. The left have no understanding what is needed to revive this economy and what ideas they have is absolutely dangerous.
Finally, the number of the wealthy has been decreasing since the beginning of the recession, so the number of the rich to be taxed is being reduced. If your strategy is to tax the rich in an economy where the number of the rich is decreasing is hardly a great economic strategy.
Which brings us to the recent debate over the economy, the GOP controls only one house of Congress so they can’t get anything passed and Obama really doesn’t care about passing much of anything so he can run against the do-nothing Congress. Obama has long given up governing and the Democratic Senate has decided to do nothing while blaming the Republicans for doing nothing! The Republicans strategy of seeking lower tax rates in exchange for reducing reduction of deductions is the right strategy, both short term and long term.
Facebook
Twitter
Last We The People learned, our knowledgeable congressional breatheren have saddled the American taxpayer with: 1) an unsustainable $15 trillion dollars in debt, 2) demonstrably dysfunctional legislative branch of government, 3) an administration hellbent on socializing America, and 3)a Judicial branch totally “out to lunch.”
Serious legislators must be voted into office. Current crop of representatives are extremely over paid and under worked. Government payrolls are highest they have ever been in the history of Our USA with resulting political and economic output hovering around 9%. This number should be 110%.
The 16th amendment is the problem. A Flat tax must be instituted asap. Phasing out of of the 16th amendment should follow. Repatriation of overseas corporate assets should be next on the block. Next, the EPA…eliminated. DOE,too…totally corrupt.
These are serious road blocks to any progress in attempting to righting a sinking ship…the USA.
Vote this 2012 election for serious fraud is all around us. God Bless America.
>>For the left, the symbolism of seeing the rich’s tax rates going up is more important than if it benefits the economy
Uh, no, wrong. The rich’s tax rates going up means that there’s less money sitting in an account doing nothing and more money enabling the needy to keep their homes, feed their families, and most important, BUY THINGS, which helps EVERYONE. This is what you folks don’t seem to understand. PEOPLE SPENDING MONEY is what keeps everything going, top to bottom, and the people most likely to spend money are the poor. The rich get taxed of money they’re not spending, and it’s given to people who WILL spend it, and the money spreads upwards to more people who spend it and it keeps going upwards until it reaches someone who has the luxury of spending it or not spending it. The rich GET THE MONEY BACK, AND THEN SOME, it helps EVERYONE along the way. How is it so many of you folks can’t understand that? It’s so goddamn obvious.
And incidentally, all the Laffer Curve shows is that increasing taxes BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT is counter-productive. Duh. If you want to make the case that the Clinton-era rates are beyond that point, knock yourself out. We’ll be right here.
First, do you realize that money doesn’t sit there but is used to invest in business and job creation. Duh!
What you Clintonasta forget, after Republicans took over Congress, after Hillarycare failed; so Clinton cut capital gain tax, slowed budget growth, reform welfare, passed free trade aggrements, and no major new entitlements were passed!
So want to repeat Clinton years, cut capital gain tax, busines tax, reform entitlements, repeal Obamacare, and cut trillions off the budget that will actually match what federal government sent as percent of GNP which would match Paul Ryan’s goal.
Over the past two years, there have been bipartisan consensus that marginal tax rates need to be reduced withe reduction or elimination of deduction, reform entitlement, the Federal government share of the economy should be no more than 20% and to match Clinton, we need to hit 18%. So over to you!
>>First, do you realize that money doesn’t sit there but is used to invest in business and job creation. Duh!
Uh, right, yes, that’s what resulted from the Bush tax cuts. All sorts of job creation and investment. Wowie, that worked like a dream.
As for the rest, it’s kind of gibberish, but basically, it cheerfully skips around the cold hard truth that a) the Clinton-era tax-raising on the rich were far from the end of the world, far from us spiraling down into socialism, and in fact led to a flourishing economy and huge surplus that b) Bush almost instantly turned into an enormous deficit, thanks to shit like pointless and endless wars and lowering the tax rates for the rich for no apparent reason and with no positive results for anyone BUT the rich; and c) Ronald Reagan? You guys’ patron saint? Raised taxes 11 times. Why aren’t you burning him in effigy?
The education continues. If Clinton had not cut capital gain tax, passed hillarycare, increase regulation, incease govermnent spending; the 90′s were have been economic stagnation or recession.
As for Reagan, marginal tax rates, were cut from 70 to 28 percent and the overall tax burdens were cut! You lefties never get the history right.
I will point out that hte first two years of the Clinton years mirrored the last year of the Bush years, with the hey day of the Clinton years occurred after the Republican took over Congress, when goverment spending were restrained, capital gain tax cut, the effect of free trade aggrments and welfare reform passed. So the path of increased government interventionist policy were stopped.
What you fail to see is how different the Clinton years were and are from the Obama years. Do you really believe that increasing margninal tax rates among the productive class, increasing capital tax rates, the increase taxes as result of Obamacare, increase deficits is going to help the economy? Obviously you do. Here is the bottom line, marginal tax rates matter, sound money matters, keeping government spending as part of the GNP matters, entitlment reform matters? Note that the road to economy recovery begins with tax reforms which almost most economist, some liberals, a good portion of the establishment, and yes RINOS and conservative. Marginal tax rates reduced along with reduction or elimination of deductions, plus reduction of deficits and spending.
As for the Bush tax cuts, umemployment dropped until the impact of the housing bubble hit, a bubble caused by government policies supported by both Parites!
The Clinton years were not produced by raising marginal tax rates but by what else done after 1994 midterm elections. The present economic doldrums has been extended by Obama policies. Just look at Greece or Italy and you see our future.
I just which there were Democrats, who would support tax reforms suggested by Democrats like Erksine Bowles, or enittlements reform suggested by Bowles. Obama could have something close Bowles-Simpson and this was recently offered by a “Tea Party Senator” like Pat Toomey.
Obama and the left hate so the rich that they are willing to destroy the poor as a result of their policy. (To paraphrase a famous quote.) As for the rich the left hates, well, there are less of them since the Recession began and less to tax and we have created more poor.
>>If Clinton had not cut capital gain tax, passed hillarycare, increase regulation, incease govermnent spending; the 90′s were have been economic stagnation or recession.
Aside from being gibberishly written and hard to follow, it’s entirely speculative. You’re “educating” us on what you think might have happened if certain things had and hadn’t been done? And calling it “education”? Um…Okay.
>>As for Reagan, marginal tax rates, were cut from 70 to 28 percent and the overall tax burdens were cut! You lefties never get the history right.
We don’t? So he DIDN’T, after the initial tax cut, RAISE TAXES 11 TIMES?
Are you sure?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html
>>Do you really believe that increasing margninal tax rates among the productive class, increasing capital tax rates, the increase taxes as result of Obamacare, increase deficits is going to help the economy?
Anything that puts more money in the hands of people who are 100% likely to spend it helps the economy. Yes. And that’s not some wild-eyed speculation, that’s just common logic. Poor person gets money, pays the rent, doesn’t get thrown out of house. Helps the poor person. Helps the landlord. Helps the owners of the places where the landlord shops and the employees of those place and the owners of the places where THEY shop, and THOSE employees and up and up and up.
Do you really not see the difference between money going to someone who absolutely WILL spend it and someone who may or may not?
>>As for the Bush tax cuts, umemployment dropped until the impact of the housing bubble hit, a bubble caused by government policies supported by both Parties!
Sorry, no, you don’t get to just blame this all on happenstance and coincidence and shrug off all responsibility. (I love how you guys talk about the housing bubble like it was some unforeseeable Act of God that was totally out of everyone’s control. Like a hurricane that Bush ignored or something.)
And in any case, you’re wrong. Here’s the summation of unemployment during the Bush years:
“The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.3% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007. After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.[53] From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people became unemployed.[54] And, as of January 1, 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.8%, the highest level in more than 15 years.”
Hmm, that’s pretty up and down, mostly down, right from the start. Still gonna blame the housing bubble hurricane thingie?
>>The present economic doldrums has been extended by Obama policies.
Fine, continue ignoring how much the stimulus helped the economy. You’re clearly smarter than the CBO. And the facts.
>>Obama and the left hate so the rich that they are willing to destroy the poor as a result of their policy. (To paraphrase a famous quote.) As for the rich the left hates, well, there are less of them since the Recession began and less to tax and we have created more poor.
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Every word in that paragraph is wrong. That you guys think ticking the tax rates on the rich a few percentage points is “hating” the rich is just fucking deranged. Never mind the fact that doing so will help EVERYONE in the long run, INCLUDING THE RICH. It’s just insane.
Please, just stop. It’s embarrassing.
We have seen unemployment at 9% or higher for the longest period of time since well, the Great Depression, and yes after three years of Obamanomics, can you concede that maybe Obamanomics is not working as well as expected? At this period of time in the Reagan recovery, we were seeing hundred of thousands of jobs created, some 6-7% quarterly GNP growth and big drop in the unemployment. History has spoken. 9% unemployment or higher for nearly three years is historical and with normal folks,proof that maybe it is not working.
As for Obama, look at the various tax increases he has either called for or his Party, and we are seeing some of the biggest tax increases with rates that go beyond what Clinton proposed or since the late 70′s.
You have totally ignored what the consensus is developing, lower marginal tax rates with reduction or elimination of tax rates. (You might want to read President own budget commission headed by Simpon and Bowles, that is if you want a to be truly educated.) The second consensus is that federal government spending should be under the present 25%, with Simpson-Bowles goal of 20% and Paul Ryan at 18%.
As for the housing bubble caused by poor government policy, that is a fact not fiction and responsible for the housing crash and financial problems. Housing bubble is not fairy tail or God ordained but the result of bad policy that I have stated repeatedly supported by both Parties. History is bearing me out and my arguments. Sorry but facts are facts and they don’t support Obama’s approach.
>>We have seen unemployment at 9% or higher for the longest period of time since well, the Great Depression, and yes after three years of Obamanomics, can you concede that maybe Obamanomics is not working as well as expected?
You’re defeating your own argument. You’re aware that the Bush tax cuts are still in effect, right? Those tax cuts for the rich that enabled them to create all those jobs?
You know what would maybe, just maybe, get that UE rate down a bit? Taking a slice of that dormant money gathering dust in ultra-wealthy people’s bank accounts and putting it in the hands of people who will automatically spend it.
Because then all the companies that are selling the stuff that said spenders are spending on will start to do better than they’re doing, and they’ll need more employees, so they’ll hire more people! And then THOSE people now working again will be able to buy more stuff, and it’s a snowball effect, see? Doesn’t that sound great? It’s called “Everybody wins!” Including all you who are fighting against it so desperately. That’s what’s so goddamn messed up about it all.
>>At this period of time in the Reagan recovery, we were seeing hundred of thousands of jobs created, some 6-7% quarterly GNP growth and big drop in the unemployment.
Okay, and how many of those 11 times had he raised taxes by this point?
>>You have totally ignored
Okay, I’ll stop you right there, because YOU have totally ignored all my points about what stimulates the economy. But what the hell, go on?
>>what the consensus is developing, lower marginal tax rates with reduction or elimination of tax rates.
What does “what the consensus is developing” mean? Seriously, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I assume you mean “What rich conservatives agree they want.” Did you mean something else?
>>You might want to read President own budget commission headed by Simpon and Bowles, that is if you want a to be truly educated.
Oh, you mean the Simpson-Bowles plan to which the Super Committee Democratic plan is nearly identical? But is getting NO REPUBLICAN SUPPORT? That plan?
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/11/super_committee_bowles_simpson.html
Yes, I’m familiar with it.
>>As for the housing bubble caused by poor government policy, that is a fact not fiction and responsible for the housing crash and financial problems
Where did I say it was? I said I find it amusing that you talk about it like it was just some unlucky act of God. Same way you talk about 9/11, that the economy was so crappy under Bush because of the cost of 9/11. Like the planes just fell out of the sky. Like Bush didn’t completely fucking ignore a briefing that warned that Bin Laden was about to attack us. Bush was just so damned unlucky! Yes, Obama is the worst President ever, Clinton almost as bad, but somehow, between these two was a brilliant leader who just HAPPENED to have the really bad luck that all this horrible happened to America while he was President. What are the odds?
>>Sorry but facts are facts and they don’t support Obama’s approach.
History shows that spending stimulates the economy, and history shows that lowering the tax rates for the wealthy does the opposite. End of story. The fact that you continue to decline to address that a slight raise in the tax rates for the upper 1% is not class warfare but the most sensible, simple, and effective way to do that pretty much says it all. But if you ever decide to, I’ll be right here.
Actually when you lower the marginal tax rates, you actually increase revenues from the wealthy, it is not Bush’s tax cuts that caused our problems and even Obama had to admit in 2009 that raising taxes in recessionary times is bad policy. I repeat what everyone is saying, marginal tax rates matters! Period! Compared the 80′s when you have a multiple plan, reduce spending and the growth of spending, reducing marginal tax rates, and sound money you had superior growth and it lasted for nearly three decades.
How did you come off the idea that housing bubble was unlikely act of God when I made the point for the entire debate that it wagovernment created problem. And what with 9/11 nonsense, what are you a truther?
There is only so much stimulus a government can do before it becomes self-defeating, so if we tax the wealthy and keep printing money, that will solve the problem? Well it is Keynesian economy on steriods, doesn’t work.It didn’t work in 2008 when Bush tried with the cooperation of a Democratic Congress, it didn’t work when Obama tried in 2009 and don’t try to tell me that it worked when well, the results speak for themselves.
You have yet to talk about the various tax increases under Obamacare, capital gain tax and other taxes that are being raised in addition on the rich and that will reach into the middle class.
So do you want to raise marginal tax rates on teh wealthy or would you be willing to accept a lower tax rates with the elimination or reduction of rates? I pose that question to you.
I will pose a second question to you, would you raise capital gain tax even if you get reduce revenues from it? This was the question that Charlie Gibson asked Obama in 2008. So two questions, two choices:
RAISE MARGINAL TAX RATES OR LOWER MARGINAL TAX RATES AND REDUCE OR ELIMINATE DEDUCTIONS.
RAISE CAPITAL GAIN TAX EVEN IT MEANS LOWER REVENUES?
>>Actually when you lower the marginal tax rates, you actually increase revenues from the wealthy,
Really. Where are you getting this? I’m intrigued because it doesn’t make any sense at all and sounds like something rich people say to justify their greed and selfishness. Could you elaborate?
>>Obama had to admit in 2009 that raising taxes in recessionary times is bad policy.
He wasn’t referring to raising taxes ON THE WEALTHY. He was saying that to justify the stimulus. You don’t raise taxes on those who are SUFFERING from the recession.
>>Compared the 80′s when you have a multiple plan, reduce spending and the growth of spending, reducing marginal tax rates, and sound money you had superior growth and it lasted for nearly three decades.
The 80′s. When Reagan was President. The guy who raised taxes 11 times. You’re making this too easy.
>>How did you come off the idea that housing bubble was unlikely act of God when I made the point for the entire debate that it was a government created problem.
Okay, then we agree that Bush should not be given a free pass for it like it was some unlucky fluke. Good.
>>And what with 9/11 nonsense, what are you a truther?
Where are you getting “truther”? I said that conservatives tend to talk about 9/11 like it was an unlucky fluke that just HAPPENED to be on Bush’s watch, and there was nothing he could have done about it. If you don’t feel that way, then fine, we agree, but I’ve heard it a lot. If it happened on Clinton or Obama’s watch, you guys would have burned them at the stake, but because it was Bush, instead it’s “Yes, that was unfortunate, but he kept us safe for the next seven years.” Which is like praising your neighbor for going seven years without killing one of your children.
>>There is only so much stimulus a government can do before it becomes self-defeating, so if we tax the wealthy and keep printing money, that will solve the problem?
Who’s talking about stimulus and printing more money? All ANYONE is talking about is returning taxes on the wealthy BACK TO THE CLINTON ERA LEVELS, WHICH WE ALREADY KNOW WORKED PRETTY WELL. You can’t scream that the sky is falling about methods that have already been proven to work. Not everyone’s memory is that short. Sorry.
>>You have yet to talk about the various tax increases under Obamacare, capital gain tax and other taxes that are being raised in addition on the rich and that will reach into the middle class.
Because what I’m talking about is raising taxes on the wealthy, so before you start bringing in all that tangential stuff, how about you at least attempt to address the point I’ve been making from the beginning, that putting money in the hands of people guaranteed to spend it stimulates the economy. Let’s start here: Agree, or disagree?
>>RAISE MARGINAL TAX RATES OR LOWER MARGINAL TAX RATES AND REDUCE OR ELIMINATE DEDUCTIONS.
RAISE CAPITAL GAIN TAX EVEN IT MEANS LOWER REVENUES?
I’m no economist, I only know the common sense of raising taxes on the wealthy so that the poor can have a safety net and are thus able to spend more, thus stimulating the economy and helping EVERYONE. Everything else is tangential.
Here’s a bonus question for you, though:
If the Republicans suddenly saw the light and realized that raising taxes on the wealthy helps everyone INCLUDING THE WEALTHY and threw their support behind it, would you go along, or would you stand firm against it?
(To put it another way: Are you a mindless robot who devours whatever talking points the GOP feeds you, or do you actually believe this crap and would continue to do so even if your heroes ceased to?)
You didn’t answer my questions would you support a tax system that lowers marginal tax rates while raising revenues by closing loopholes?
As for the latter question, we have tried your strategy of raising taxes on the riches and the reverse and more often than not, the reverse produced more revenues from the wealthy and a higher concentration of revenues from the wealthy. Look at the facts and the case over, I win. Now I will make final point and conclusion, yes you are envious of the rich and producer which is why you are so damn insistent tax rates on the rich even if it won’t raise the revenues promised. You accuse others of being mindless robots when you simply repeat Democratic talking points. Yes I believe in this crap because it is more accurate than your fantasy. I win, you lose, I will move on. Good bye.
>>You didn’t answer my questions would you support a tax system that lowers marginal tax rates while raising revenues by closing loopholes?
I’d have to know more specifics before I answered that, and you haven’t answered any of mine, which are far simpler. One was even just a basic yes or no. I really can’t dumb it down any further. Is it still unclear, or are you just to weak to admit your answer?
>>As for the latter question, we have tried your strategy of raising taxes on the riches and the reverse and more often than not, the reverse produced more revenues from the wealthy and a higher concentration of revenues from the wealthy.
Uh, right, that’s why the economy was so shitty during the Clinton years and so fantastic after the Bush tax cuts. Oh, wait…
>>Look at the facts and the case over,
I did, but I’m referring to the actual facts, and you’re referring to the “facts” you pulled out of your ass. Have you noticed how many links I post to support my points, and that you don’t post any, you just say this shit and seem to think that makes it so? What do you make of that?
>>ou are envious of the rich and producer which is why you are so damn insistent tax rates on the rich even if it won’t raise the revenues promised.
Um, no, I’m actually advocating something that would help everyone, INCLUDING THE RICH. That you can’t even answer yes or no on whether or not people spending money helps the economy pretty much says it all, but I’ll say this anyway: You don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s why you’re writing for this shitty little website that will let anyone with a keyboard and an “I Hate Obama” bumper sticker blog to their heart’s content. It doesn’t mean you’re not ignorant and silly. In fact, it’s a strong indication that you are.
>>You accuse others of being mindless robots when you simply repeat Democratic talking points. Yes I believe in this crap because it is more accurate than your fantasy. I win, you lose, I will move on. Good bye.
Uh, okay, way to support your points with more “facts.” “I win, you lose”? Seriously? Are you eight years old?
Zing?
I will repeat my central theme since you missing a good portion of my argument. If you want fact to support much of my argument you can begin with Heritage Foundation, Martin Feldstein, Lindsey Lawrence, Cato Institute, Obama budget deficit commission among others.
At this point in history, raising marginal tax rates will not be beneficial and Erskine Bowles-Alan Simpson budget commission agrees with me on that point. As I noticed repeatedly, the consensus on which to move from our present economic doldrums is lower marginal tax rates while reforming tax system by eliminating or reducing deductions, reform entitlements and cut spending in real terms and as a percentage of GNP. Bowles can live with spending at 20% and Ryan at 18%. There are difference like the treatment of capital gain tax but there is more agreement; tax rate matters. There is a bipartisan support for that.
Historically when tax rates have been reduced, revenues from the wealthy have increase in real terms and as percent of individual taxes collected. This was true in the 1960′s, the 1980
s and when Clinton lowered capital gain tax, revenus from capital increased, a point made by Charles Gibson, hardly a supplysider. Let say, Erkine Bowles agree with me more than your argument.
As for your argument on stimulus, we have pumped trillion of dollars of stimulus in the hands of consumers and our economy has staggered; hardly a success. To answer your question, the Reagan approach of lower marginal tax rates worked better at getting money in the hands of consumers than Obama approach. NO I would have voted against the Obama stimulus just I did not support the Bush stimulus in 2008 which was similar to theory to Obama approach. It is a short term fix with no long term gain and the recent CBO reports have acknowledge that.
As for Reagan, your mantra that Reagan rose taxes 11 times missed the whole pictures. Much of those tax increases dealt with closing loopholes and user fees but the overall tax burdens for most Americans went down! So the overall Reagan years were reduced taxes and economic growth that lasted three decades and four President before the housing bubble hit, a policy caused by bad govenment policies enacted by both Parties.
You talk about marginal tax rates going up in Clinton years and yes the world did not end but Clinton mitagated the damage by reducing capital tax rates, slowing federal spending and reducing it as a percentage of the GNP and passed free trade agreements which added trillion of dollars to consumers and this is the complete opposite of what Obama did. Clinton best years came after Newt Ginrich became Speaker, something rarely dealth with History and least I forget welfare reform.
The other problem is that Obama is not just talking about increasing marginal tax rates to Clinton years but going beyond that. There is at least 750 billion dollars of tax increases in obamacare and I suspect that is underestimating it and he will raise capital gain tax and he has yet to commit lower business marginal tax rates; his effort on free trade has been putrid. Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal counted the various tax increases that Obama has talked about along with much of the progressive caucus and we are talking 60% marginal tax rates,which are Carter years not Clinton years. With increasing regulations. So Obama is not just copying the Clinton years but going beyond that.
I will be writing on the politics of envy and why it is bad for economy in a future article. So I won’t act like an eighth grader and you can quit calling me a robot and my position crap, especially since Obama own commission is more in line with my thinking than yours.
Enjoy our conversation and hope that you had a wonderful holiday. Take care and keep reading Hollywood Republican.
Quickly because I’m in a hurry and this is a poor use of my time:
1. I didn’t ask if you would have voted for the stimulus, I asked if you think putting money in the hands of people who will definitely spend it stimulates the economy. (Hint: Yes.)
2. But speaking of the stimulus, the facts are that while it didn’t instantly solve everything, it DID unquestionably improve things, and if there was anything wrong about it, it was not being big enough.
3. All the sources you listed, the Heritage Foundation and so forth, are right-wing-biased talking points vomiters. All except Obama’s budget commission, which, again, does not say what you think it said. See why links are helpful? It would be so easy for you to back up your case if you just linked to some facts. Why aren’t you?
4. “Obamacare”, whatever its flaws, will enable many people to better afford health care, which frees up their money for other spending, which stimulates the economy. That’s on top of its advantages like, you know, less people dying because they couldn’t afford health care. So it’s win-win. You’d see that if you gave it a moment’s thought. But it’s not in the talking points, so you won’t.
Have a nice day! Er, I mean…Beep-boop-beep!
As usual you miss point I made on the stimulus since you asked the question getting money in people hand wonderful, the question is how and as I notice, the stimulus plan was a short term fix that failed in long haul, a point that the recent CBO made. When I stated that I won’t have voted for the stimulus was a simple point, it was the wrong way to stimulate the economy. So no it was bad policy and delayed recovery. And as usual, your economic solution have the government spend money to solve our economic plan and begs the question, when you do evenually run out of money before the stimulus bankrupts the country. With you, it is always about we didn’t spend enough money. In 2008 we were told 200 billion plus was not enough but maybe if we spend 600 billion, it will be fine, which is what Krugman and Summers estimated and after spenidng 800 billion plus, now we need to spend what another trillion? Sorry as the recent CBO hearings couple of weeks ago, admitted the long term effect of the stimulus will be negative and it obvious why. When you spend over 90% of the GNP, you are on the road to Greece. We are now 100% and headed for bankruptcy. And headed for another downgrade.
Rightwing vomit producers are superior in their analysis than their left wing counterpart, just review the past 50 years and compare results with their left wing counter part.The right have been right more times than wrong. The only think tank worth its salt is the Brookings.
So far on the Obama care, much of what was predicated by the critics has proven correct. The recent collapse of the CLASS program showed that the deception that Obama administration went to hide it cost and now we know that you get to keep your health insurance has proven to be false where at least 30% of companies will drop their insurance or change them to fit the program. Which explains the some 2000 waivers, mostly given to Obama’s allies since they couldn’t deal with the cost of Obamacare. So bankruptcy America with a failed stimulus and a health care plan of over 2300 pages that no one actually read and now finding the fineprint; great if that is your idea of great legislation, count me out.
Your entire argument is one big talking point, but the results are amoong us. At this time in the Reagan years, recovery was some twice to three times the growth of Obama years and unemployment dropping like a rock. Those are the facts, they don’t fit your talking points, which you are good at.
Artifically stimulating the economy by “getting money in the people hands” does not work long term and that is obvious now if you take the time to look around. Your talking point about Clinton years ignore the fact that his administration abandoned the hard left policies pursued and went to center including cutting capital gain tax, cutting the growth of federal spending, welfare reform and free trade. In otherwords, he abandoned Obamanomics for a softer version of Reaganomics and saved his Presidency. Just read Dick Morris column and you might understand the true success or Bowles-Simplson to understand the steps needed to revive the economy.
Nor does your talking point deal with the idea that freeing the economy is a superior way of stimulating the economy and “getting money into the hands of the people” than dropping money out of helicoptors. Your idea of an argument is present a bunch of links from leftist sites and call it facts.
This is the reality, getting money in the hands of people or what ever is worthless quote since it tells us nothing how to get there. So tax the rich and take the proceeds to give to poor is hardly a successful economic plan as we saw in the 70′s.
We have two paths and since you don’t like right wing vomit producers and you obviously don’t like Bowles ideas either; we are at impasse but the bottom line the intellectual battle is headed back as Erkine Bowles report was nothing more than a rejection of Obamanomics and your idea of putting money in the hands of people by dropping money out of the sky through liberal monetary policy and unlimited stimulus since you have to tell us ow much is enough. Bowles has surrender and it is time for the rest of the left to do as well.
Just look at history and you will see that there is limit to government power when it comes to stimulating the economy. We hit the limits and Bowles sees that, you don’t. it is that simple.
Re: The CBO and the stimulus, you genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about. Here’s what they said:
“
“The economy would have been in much worse shape without the 2009 stimulus—-which increased employment in the third quarter of this year by as many as 3.3 million full-time jobs, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office. [...]
The CBO figures released Tuesday estimate that the stimulus package raised the gross domestic product this past quarter by 0.3 percent to 1.9 percent.
The CBO report provided a broad range of the estimated number of full-time jobs created because of the stimulus – from a low of 500,000 to a high of 3.3 million jobs. [...]
The effects of the stimulus are fading after having peaked in the first half of 2010, the report noted.
However, the CBO estimates that the stimulus will raise GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.8 percent next year and employment by 200,000 to 1.1 million jobs.”
It helps when you say stuff to actually KNOW stuff!
>>Your entire argument is one big talking point,
No, it’s actually the opposite. I haven’t heard a single Democrat make the point that putting money in the hands of people who are guaranteed to spend it helps everyone. Not one. It’s common fucking sense, and I wish they WOULD make it a talking point, but they don’t, so the result is ignoramuses such as you blathering nonsense like yours. But it’s really an inarguable point, and so far, all you’ve been able to do to combat it is to make shit up. Says it all, really.
>>At this time in the Reagan years,
Reagan…That’s the guy who raised taxes 11 times?
>>Just read Dick Morris column
Conspiracy loon Dick Morris? Okay, you’re now in negative cred. Congrats.
>>Nor does your talking point deal with the idea that freeing the economy is a superior way of stimulating the economy and “getting money into the hands of the people” than dropping money out of helicoptors.
Okay, that’s mostly gibberish, but basically, if I’m understanding you right, you DISAGREE that when people who are GUARANTEED to spend money have more money to spend, it helps the economy?
Seriously? (I mean, Oh my Fucking God, seriously?)
>>Your idea of an argument is present a bunch of links from leftist sites and call it facts.
Yes, like that ultra-leftist CBS.com site. Who the fuck are they, anyway?
And it’s so tiresome when you guys dismiss facts based on what site quotes them. Can you really not recognize when a fact is being presented to you? The super-committee plan was similar to the Bowles plan. FACT. But it had no Republican support. FACT. Does it matter what site prints that? It’s the fucking truth. The fact that you’re focused on where the links go instead of what they say pretty much says it all.
Why are you even blogging when you don’t think shit through? Why are you here?
>>So tax the rich and take the proceeds to give to poor is hardly a successful economic plan as we saw in the 70′s.
Could you be more specific? Cause I don’t know what you’re referring to in the 70′s, but it worked pretty damn well in the 90′s. And UNdoing it in the 2000′s worked pretty damn shittily.
>>We have two paths and since you don’t like right wing vomit producers and you obviously don’t like Bowles ideas either;
I didn’t say anything about Bowles, other than that your heroes completely REJECTED it when it came from the Democrats. Good men. Very consistent.
>>your idea of putting money in the hands of people by dropping money out of the sky through liberal monetary policy and unlimited stimulus since you have to tell us ow much is enough.
You’re insane. I haven’t said anything remotely like that. I said it’s better for the economy when people who are guaranteed to spend it have it then when it sits in a billionaire’s bank account doing nothing. That you disagree with that is just fucking weird. That you have to keep altering it until it’s unrecognizable says it all. That you dismiss it as a talking point is just wrong. That you can barely form a sentence is just fucking sad.
>>We hit the limits and Bowles sees that, you don’t. it is that simple.
Gee, tell the GOP. They’re the ones who rejected an identical plan from the super committee.
And some final tips for the day:
Learn to read!
Learn grammar!
Good luck!
I’ve just read most of your comments and I think it is you who don’t know what you are talking about. Stimulus plans do nothing to help the economy. The provide a short term lift to GNP and employment until the money runs out. History has shown that they stimulate only to the extent money is spent. Once the money is gone, the stimulus is gone. The only way you create a true stimulus is by letting market forces work. If the economy is let alone and the market is allowed to work, you will have true economic growth and not another fake bubble. If you want to see a big example of this, look to Japan of the 1990s.
Um…You’re aware my main point wasn’t about the stimulus, right? That we somehow got on the subject of the stimulus because someone else would rather talk about that than answer the simple question “Yes or no, does it help the economy when people who are guaranteed to spend money have more money to spend?”
You are free to answer THAT question. I have a feeling I’m going to get in response a) neither a yes or a no, and b) repeated, Strawman-like dismissal of the stimulus instead.
But what the hell, I gotta try.
Also, do not insult a person’s grammar, your comment is full of problems in the same manner.
Hey, I don’t like to nitpick, but seriously, some of those sentences are genuine unreadable gibberish. If I’ve made some typos or mis-stated something here and there, that’s on me, but I’m pretty sure the prose is comprehensible.
Seriously, man, where the hell do you find these people? Is it like “Life of Brian”?
“How much do you hate Obama?”
“A lot!”
(ponders this for several seconds)
“Right, you’re in.”