Discussion: The Economy, National Debt, And Other Financial Issues II

[Paradoxium]

That's because it going north is a double edged sword, gas go crazy as well. This in turn drives up cost of food as well. It's due for a correction, it's really overbought.

And we need to start talking about HFT Algobots. Post-August it has been... interesting.

 

[Paradoxium]

50% Tax Rate "Failing to Boost Revenues"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...9/50p-tax-rate-failing-to-boost-revenues.html



Awesome.

More or less what I have been saying for ****ing ages, the rich are the most capable of escaping taxes. But according to the left I am wrong, the rich are stupid enough to bend over and give all the cash.

That or they go off tangent about the rich's obligation of giving more and more, throw Buffet's name (ignoring his more scrupulous reasons) and suffer some cognitive dissonance. That is, how their policy not only does not accomplish their goals, it does the opposite.

So the issue has never been whether you think they should pay or more or less, my argument is raising taxes won't do squat in this context. Especially in the age of the internet (making it easier and more efficient to manage). And now expiring the Bush cuts won't do squat (1.3 trillion still) - that "expiration" is making a insane assumption the rich won't shelter thus inhibiting revenues even more.

 

[Handsome Rob]

More or less what I have been saying for ****ing ages, the rich are the most capable of escaping taxes. But according to the left I am wrong, the rich are stupid enough to bend over and give all the cash.

That or they go off tangent about the rich's obligation of giving more and more, throw Buffet's name (ignoring his more scrupulous reasons) and suffer some cognitive dissonance. That is, how their policy not only does not accomplish their goals, it does the opposite.

So the issue has never been whether you think they should pay or more or less, my argument is raising taxes won't do squat in this context. Especially in the age of the internet (making it easier and more efficient to manage). And now expiring the Bush cuts won't do squat (1.3 trillion still) - that "expiration" is making a insane assumption the rich won't shelter thus inhibiting revenues even more.

People with this mentality think that these tax decisions exist in a vacuum. If you raise taxes by 10%, then you get 10% more revenue. Period. And that's all that happens. No other impacts. No other effects. But then, these are the same people who praise the corporate income tax while slamming sales taxes (or the FairTax) as being regressive against the poor.

They don't understand the dynamics of it. Rivers flow through the paths of least resistance, and people with the know-how will cause their wealth (and the income that wealth generates) to flow to the path of maximum return if they can do so. Why else do people move money overseas? It's not so that they can pay more in taxes or earn less on their return (I know, I'm preaching to the choir when it comes to you). But hey, you might enjoy this article:

Obama's Dividend Assault

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...25493025537660.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

In his class-warfare obsession with making the rich pay "their fair share," tax decisions are made that will negatively impact a lot of people who aren't necessarily wealthy. If increased dividend rates disincentivize the payment of dividends, then everyone who gets a dividend (and that could include a little old lady who depends on dividends to help pay her bills on her apartment) suffers.

 

[Pagan]

Greg Smith sets the building on fire as he exits Goldman.

Matt Taibbi with a nice follow up

 

[Pagan]

If increased dividend rates disincentivize the payment of dividends, then everyone who gets a dividend (and that could include a little old lady who depends on dividends to help pay her bills on her apartment) suffers.

The WSJ sounds really concerned about Grandma.

 

[Handsome Rob]

The WSJ sounds really concerned about Grandma.

So they shouldn't point it out and instead pretend like Obama's policies and proposals are all sunshine and rainbows for the middle and lower class? Riiiiiiiiight . . .

 

[Pagan]

So they shouldn't point it out and instead pretend like Obama's policies and proposals are all sunshine and rainbows for the middle and lower class? Riiiiiiiiight . . .

These guys would steal Grandma's panties off her corpse if it made them a buck. No one is buying that they care about poor granny who's medical care is going up because someone cut back on her benefits so the rich can pay half what the middle class pay in taxes

 

[Handsome Rob]

These guys would steal Grandma's panties off her corpse if it made them a buck. No one is buying that they care about poor granny who's medical care is going up because someone cut back on her benefits so the rich can pay half what the middle class pay in taxes

So I take it you're not going to attempt to refute what they said . . . you just wanted the opportunity to gripe about those evil people at the WSJ.

Cool.

 

[DBryan]

Greg Smith sets the building on fire as he exits Goldman.

Matt Taibbi with a nice follow up

I hope people read these.

Goldman Sachs are scum.

 

[wiegeabo]

I hope people read these.

Goldman Sachs are scum.

It's usually what happens when corporations forget the customers are the real bosses, and know that the government will keep them in business no matter what they do.

Fear of failure is good. Especially when you're running a business.

 

[Handsome Rob]

CBO: Obama's Budget Deepens Debt by $3.5 Trillion

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/16/cbo-obama-budget-deepens-debt-35-trillion/

$3.5 Trillion in additional debt over the next 10 years. Obama wants what's best for America? Then why does he saddle its children and grandchildren with such debt?**

President Obama’s budget would pile up an additional $3.5 trillion in debt over the next 10 years and shows the government’s trust funds running out of money in 2020, Congress’s official non-partisan scorekeeper said Friday.

In 2012 alone Mr. Obama’s budget would leave a $1.3 trillion deficit — $82 billion worse than if none of his policies were enacted. Over the next ten years the deficit would dip to less than a half-trillion dollars in 2017, but would rise again in the later years.

By 2022, a decade from now, the federal government would spend $5.6 trillion and take in $4.9 trillion in revenue — both figures far outstripping today’s levels.

And then Obama's budget director called it confirmation of the President's "balanced plan." Yeah . . . he doesn't know the definition of balance.

Spoiler

**I don't support deficit spending/continual debt accumulation in general, and especially not planned deficit spending under any circumstance. And when I say I don't support it, that means I don't support it period.

 

[dnno1]

CBO: Obama's Budget Deepens Debt by $3.5 Trillion

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/16/cbo-obama-budget-deepens-debt-35-trillion/

$3.5 Trillion in additional debt over the next 10 years. Obama wants what's best for America? Then why does he saddle its children and grandchildren with such debt?**

President Obama’s budget would pile up an additional $3.5 trillion in debt over the next 10 years and shows the government’s trust funds running out of money in 2020, Congress’s official non-partisan scorekeeper said Friday.

In 2012 alone Mr. Obama’s budget would leave a $1.3 trillion deficit — $82 billion worse than if none of his policies were enacted. Over the next ten years the deficit would dip to less than a half-trillion dollars in 2017, but would rise again in the later years.

By 2022, a decade from now, the federal government would spend $5.6 trillion and take in $4.9 trillion in revenue — both figures far outstripping today’s levels.

And then Obama's budget director called it confirmation of the President's "balanced plan." Yeah . . . he doesn't know the definition of balance.

Spoiler

**I don't support deficit spending/continual debt accumulation in general, and especially not planned deficit spending under any circumstance. And when I say I don't support it, that means I don't support it period.

So if none of his policies were enacted it would only amount to saving $82 billion? If my math is correct that's only a 6% increase for doing something. Furthermore, If we deficit spend $1.3 trillion this year, that means with the 5th grade math that I am using, the amount of deficit spending over the next 9 years would be only $2.2 trillion or an average of a little more than $240 billion a year. That's not much compared to $1.3 trillion in one year. In fact, it sounds like the deficit is being cut.

As for deficit spending in general, you may not support spending or continual debt, but I don't know of any one person or institution, who's goal is prosperity and the pursuit of happiness, that does not deficit spend or accrue debt. It is more important right now to ensure that this economy moves beyond recovery into expansion than to talk about balancing the budget before that happens. I really thought that everybody learned that lesson from our past attempts at doing so back in 1937 (trying to balance the budget while the economy was recovering only made the country fall back into a depression). If we are to be able to pay back our debt we are going to need as many people as we can working and paying taxes. That can't happen if the federal government cuts back on spending right now.

 

[Pagan]

So if none of his policies were enacted it would only amount to saving $82 billion? If my math is correct that's only a 6% increase for doing something. Furthermore, If we deficit spend $1.3 trillion this year, that means with the 5th grade math that I am using, the amount of deficit spending over the next 9 years would be only $2.2 trillion or an average of a little more than $240 billion a year. That's not much compared to $1.3 trillion in one year. In fact, it sounds like the deficit is being cut.

As for deficit spending in general, you may not support spending or continual debt, but I don't know of any one person or institution, who's goal is prosperity and the pursuit of happiness, that does not deficit spend or accrue debt. It is more important right now to ensure that this economy moves beyond recovery into expansion than to talk about balancing the budget before that happens. I really thought that everybody learned that lesson from our past attempts at doing so back in 1937 (trying to balance the budget while the economy was recovering only made the country fall back into a depression). If we are to be able to pay back our debt we are going to need as many people as we can working and paying taxes. That can't happen if the federal government cuts back on spending right now.

yeah he didn't want to point out that 94% of that is residuals from the Bush admin's time in office. End the tax cuts now. Raise the ceiling for SS deductions and do means testing.

 

[Pagan]

Last week Maher and Pelosi showed us the Mississippi tea party yokels. This week they show us NYC welfare queens

 

[Handsome Rob]

yeah he didn't want to point out that 94% of that is residuals from the Bush admin's time in office. End the tax cuts now. Raise the ceiling for SS deductions and do means testing.

Bush! He's the cause of all our problems! Never mind that Congress also plays a (rather significant) role in the spending that goes on in the federal government, and the last two years of Bush's 2nd term had Democratic majorities in both Houses. TARP ($700 billion), for instance, may have been signed into law by Pres. Bush, but Sen. Obama voted for it. Blaming everything (or at least 94% of it) on Bush is a simple-minded, partisan view of the financial irresponsibility and flat-out idiocy at play in our federal government--if you want to rock it, though, I won't stop you.

Me? I blame Presidents, Congresses, and both parties.

Oh, and those figures? Yeah, the CBO assumes that the Bush tax cuts end on schedule (12/31/12) when they make those projections. Essentially 8 and 1/2 months of additional revenue by ending the tax cuts today wouldn't make much of a dent in a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit. I've seen estimates that place the loss of federal revenue at as much as $300 billion over the two-year extension. 8.5 months of that is a whopping $106.5 billion, assuming equal amounts per month. $106.5 billion against an annual deficit of $1.3 Trillion--wow.

 

[8wid]

Did Christianity Cause the Crash?

 

[Pagan]

So I take it you're not going to attempt to refute what they said . . . you just wanted the opportunity to gripe about those evil people at the WSJ.

Cool.

yes that's it. I suppose all the little old ladies you know are rolling in capital gains income?

 

[Pagan]

Bush! He's the cause of all our problems! Never mind that Congress also plays a (rather significant) role in the spending that goes on in the federal government, and the last two years of Bush's 2nd term had Democratic majorities in both Houses. TARP ($700 billion), for instance, may have been signed into law by Pres. Bush, but Sen. Obama voted for it. Blaming everything (or at least 94% of it) on Bush is a simple-minded, partisan view of the financial irresponsibility and flat-out idiocy at play in our federal government--if you want to rock it, though, I won't stop you.

Me? I blame Presidents, Congresses, and both parties.

Oh, and those figures? Yeah, the CBO assumes that the Bush tax cuts end on schedule (12/31/12) when they make those projections. Essentially 8 and 1/2 months of additional revenue by ending the tax cuts today wouldn't make much of a dent in a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit. I've seen estimates that place the loss of federal revenue at as much as $300 billion over the two-year extension. 8.5 months of that is a whopping $106.5 billion, assuming equal amounts per month. $106.5 billion against an annual deficit of $1.3 Trillion--wow.

I think you're conveniently a few things. like accrued interest on all that borrowed money we had to have to fund the war of ignorance. Bush was smart and kept all that off the books while he was in office. And the money we had to borrow to give those tax cuts for 10 yrs.

But yeah the hole we were in requires some digging to get out of. But go ahead and try to put most of it on Obama. If you keep repeating it you might even believe it yourself.

 

[Pagan]

I'm just going to leave this here

 

[Paradoxium]

I'm just going to leave this here

Leave what here?

One quick glance, you notice the first problem. It's government spending not federal only. This alone makes it a very stupid comparison.

It's also from first to last quarter spending. So apparently the stimulus spending is not a big deal and so is the other 3 quarters. You also ignore all those mini-stimulus that gets peppered all over the years as well (aka what people were *****ing about). Along with all other temporary and non-discretionary spending not counting as well. A couple hundred billion here, a couple hundred billion there.

Lastly, the Clinton surplus was a result of renting cash from intragovernmental holding aka SOCIAL SECURITY that doesn't get counted onto the budget. Why do you think the debt went up despite a budget surplus? This has got to rank up there in one of the most disingenuous lies.

I can't believe people are trying to spin Obama as a fiscal conservative. That's some serious brass balls.

 

[enterthemadness]

Gary Johnson and Ron Paul would do a double take and flip out.

 

[Paradoxium]

.. if they saw they had 2% of the national vote t:

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

On the one hand, it annoys me when people talk about the national debt as the biggest problem facing the American economy - as opposed to the human suffering caused by unemployment, poverty and inequality.

At the same time, Keynesians who think America can deficit-spend its way back to happy boom times are fooling themselves. The country is already facing massive deficits and there's no fiscal breathing room to fund public works projects like in the New Deal (though it's not as if any Democratic politicians are even considering that idea) that would put people back to work.

The problem is capitalism itself, and the only way the American economy can escape this vicious cycle of debt and austerity is by expropriating the commanding heights of the economy (the biggest banks and corporations), nationalizing them under democratic workers' control and repudiating the national debt, then encouraging working people in other countries to do the same and join up with the American working class.

 

[enterthemadness]

The national debt is serious. Higher it goes up, worse off we Americans are. Truth.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

The national debt is serious. Higher it goes up, worse off we Americans are. Truth.

I'm not arguing with that. I just think that the focus on the debt a) often comes at the expense of other issues, like unemployment; and b) tends to avoid discussing the biggest causes of that debt - endless wars, bank bailouts, the bloated empire ("defense") budget, and corporate tax cuts.

Mention Social Security and Medicare as expanding the deficit if you want, but unlike the above-mentioned budget busters, those programs actually help ordinary Americans.