Osama and Reps reach tax deal

[Frank M 181]

I have him on ignore too.

 

Why? You miss all the hilarity!

[MDC 7,882]

Why? You miss all the hilarity!

 

I get to see their assinine posts when other people quote them. Then I laugh to myself at the two lovelorn d-bags still trying to get my attention weeks after I cut them off.

 

[DanXIII 8]

What tax cuts took place in 2001? I'm talking about actual policy implementation now - not what a piece of paper says. What took place in 2001 was two things: Recession, and 9/11; both of which derailed any "projections" you or the chart author wanted to claim. Your chart is wrong.

 

"My" chart is a collection of data points displayed graphically. How is it wrong? Are you saying the data is incorrect?

 

What your chart shows is an attempt by some clown to assert that because there is a projection of income, that said events are supposed to mirror that projection. It didn't take into account anything but what it wanted to take into account, and ignored totally what metric made the numbers bounce back in 2003 (see the squiggle start to move upwards again there?)

 

Yeah, I've already conceded that the squiggly line begins to move upward again. What I said was that those tax cuts didn't necessarily cause the line to move upward, and you certainly haven't proven it with your chart.

 

You offered a chart from someone with a political/economic agenda, and as such only portray PROJECTIONS in an attempt to make a political point. I offered charts that actually are VERIFIED NUMBERS.

 

Not that I am disputing the numbers, but who "verified" them? You?

 

And I offered "a chart from someone with a "political/economic agenda?" Is that a joke? Your chart is from OOFDAH!

 

Oofdah! Pithy comments of a Constitutional Conservative

 

Some other Oofdah! gems:

 

Now Obama wants to be "bipartisan."

 

Impeach Obama

 

Liberals don't understand economics

 

Projections are bullsh!t.

 

Good god man, PLEASE take a focking college economics course. Hell, a high school economics course will help. Projections are paramount when it comes to making sound financial decisions. My god I had no idea how deep it went...

 

Do you see the revenue result, even in your chart?

 

Wait, so "my" chart isn't "wrong" after all? Make up your mind plz.

 

It's also not true that "something has to happen EVERY TIME" or it's not true; that's intellectually dishonest.

 

I agree, it is completely intellectually (not to mention factually) dishonest to assert that revenues go up every time taxes are cut.

 

(and BTW: a "stimulus" isn't a tax cut).

 

Just under 40% of the stimulus plan spending was, in fact, on tax cuts and tax incentives. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand. I assume that you are simply uninformed on the subject, which is understandable given that I have heard exactly zero conservative talking heads refer to them. But they were/are there:

 

Tax incentives

 

Total: $288 billion

[edit] Tax incentives for individuals

 

Total: $237 billion

 

* $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]

* $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]

* $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).

* $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.

* $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]

* $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.

* $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.

* $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.

* $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

 

There is nothing "intellectually dishonest" about calling the tax cutting provisions of the stimulus plan "tax cuts." HTH

 

[FlaHawker 24]

I think it's hilarious when FlaHawker chimes in with nothing other than a "What he said" post.

 

At least he's consistent.

I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. Didn't know you needed me to explain it to you. But then again, we're talking about you and MDC.

[Frank M 181]

I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. Didn't know you needed me to explain it to you. But then again, we're talking about you and MDC.

 

No explanation needed. It was a meaningless post and you're a tool. I get it.

[IMMensaMind 462]

"My" chart is a collection of data points displayed graphically. How is it wrong? Are you saying the data is incorrect?

 

A chart is wrong when it attempts to make a political point, and misleads. That is exactly what the chart you posted attempted to do. Projections are not "data points". What you showed in your chart was a straight line which attempted to show some fictional direction that revenues where supposed to go (even though they never travel with linearity). You attempted to claim that because revenues went down after 2001, tax cuts don't work - you attempted to tie Bush's 2001 Tax Cut to a reduction in revenue. Your attempt was extremely misleading, even if you do not understand why. You didn't take several things into account, which is why you're incorrect:

 

1) Bush's 2001 action was meant to phase in over time. It initially created nearly no changes at all (see wiki link I provided you).

 

2) We were hitting a recessionary period at the time, with job losses and an economic slowdown.

 

3) 9/11 took place - an act which by some estimates cost our economy 2 trillion dollars

 

4) You completely ignored the reversal of the "squiggly line": Bush's 2003 Jobs and Growth Act, which intentionally accelerated Bush's 2001 bill (see wiki link again).

 

Yeah, I've already conceded that the squiggly line begins to move upward again. What I said was that those tax cuts didn't necessarily cause the line to move upward, and you certainly haven't proven it with your chart.

 

WTF are you talking about? You have a wiki - which explained what was done to quicken the economic impact of the Bush Tax Cuts to the market in 2003, and the according boost in revenues. You also have a 60 year chart of unemployment rate, which correlates directly to lower unemployment (and higher revenue) to tax cuts.

 

Not that I am disputing the numbers, but who "verified" them? You?

 

The Department of the Treasury.

 

And I offered "a chart from someone with a "political/economic agenda?" Is that a joke? Your chart is from OOFDAH!

 

Interesting defense. Funnily, your chart was from a blog called Vagabond Scholar!

 

Intellectual honesty demands a refutation of the data; not an attack on the source. The chart I used is posted everywhere; I pulled it from a random site. The data, however, originates from the Treasury.

 

Some other Oofdah! gems:

 

Now Obama wants to be "bipartisan."

 

Impeach Obama

 

Liberals don't understand economics

 

I like that last one, and I agree. Nevertheless: you cannot question the veracity of the data, so you do what all intellectually bankrupt leftists do: attempt to smear the poster.

 

Good god man, PLEASE take a focking college economics course. Hell, a high school economics course will help. Projections are paramount when it comes to making sound financial decisions. My god I had no idea how deep it went...

 

I have already posted my educational background in another thread a while ago; this is my area of expertise. You don't know WTF you're talking about, and you continue to flail about attempting to attack my character and knowledge. It doesn't seem to matter to you that you're wrong; you keep bapping away.

 

Wait, so "my" chart isn't "wrong" after all? Make up your mind plz.

 

Oh for crissakes. Your chart was wrong because of what it attempted to portray. You were wrong because you attempted to use a chart from a source which attempted to make the same argument you did, and I rebuffed it using what I had available to me: your chart. You clearly are stuck with your chart, because you posted it - that's why you had to admit that revenues went up in 2003, and I explained very clearly WHY to you.

 

You're stuck with that; every time a leftist gets stuck they lash out even harder.

 

I agree, it is completely intellectually (not to mention factually) dishonest to assert that revenues go up every time taxes are cut.

 

Except that it's completely true; the Treasury coffers have increased every time that tax cuts are passed; unemployment goes down every time tax cuts have been passed. Tax cuts also cause the "rich" to pay more. I've already posted the data. Here's Economist Thomas Sowell on this point:

 

"In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73%, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes -- and 30% of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24%, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue -- and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65% of the taxes.

 

How could that be?

 

The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise. High tax rates, which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration.

 

The New York Times reported in 2006: 'An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.' Expectations are in the eyes of the beholder -- and in the rhetoric of the demagogues. If class warfare is more important to some politicians than collecting more revenue when there is a deficit, then let the voters know that. And spare us so-called 'deficit reduction commissions.'"

 

And another quote, this time from Economist Walter E. Williams:

 

"What about the politician who tells us that he's not going to raise taxes on the middle class; instead, he's going to raise corporate income taxes as means to get rich corporations to pay their rightful share of government? If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if it is to survive, it will have one of three responses, or some combination thereof. One response is to raise the price of its product, so who bears the burden? Another response is to lower dividends; again, who bears the burden? Yet another response is to lay off workers. In each case, it is people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, who bear the burden of the tax."

[IMMensaMind 462]

Just under 40% of the stimulus plan spending was, in fact, on tax cuts and tax incentives. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand. I assume that you are simply uninformed on the subject, which is understandable given that I have heard exactly zero conservative talking heads refer to them. But they were/are there:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

 

There is nothing "intellectually dishonest" about calling the tax cutting provisions of the stimulus plan "tax cuts." HTH

 

 

Ah. The infamous "targeted" tax cuts.

 

All tax cuts are not equal, but I'll grant this last point (as we weren't talking about the Stimulus package in this equation). However, they are not the brunt of the stimulus, which was a big wet sloppy kiss to irresponsible businesses, etc. There were many who felt that it was critical to do so, including Congressman Paul Ryan, with whom I am nearly in constant agreement. It is ancillary to the point.

 

BTW: are you in the crowd that argues that the Stimulus was a good thing, and that it worked? If so - and if 40% of it was "tax cuts" - aren't you contradicting yourself? If tax cuts are needed to boost an economy, why are you against them here?

[IMMensaMind 462]

I get to see their assinine posts when other people quote them. Then I laugh to myself at the two lovelorn d-bags still trying to get my attention weeks after I cut them off.

 

 

Except you're the weak tool you cannot stop mentioning me, and actually posts how you're ignoring me and my posts, while not ignoring me or my posts. I win.

 

[FlaHawker 24]

Except you're the weak tool you cannot stop mentioning me, and actually posts how you're ignoring me and my posts, while not ignoring me or my posts. I win.

 

//thread and if you want more hilarity go watch ol MDC get destroyed in his own threads over on the mange bored

[BLS 314]

Proof that taxes provide economic returns for everyone.

[GettnHuge 2]

Except you're the weak tool you cannot stop mentioning me, and actually posts how you're ignoring me and my posts, while not ignoring me or my posts. I win.

 

 

welcum to the club

[DanXIII 8]

I like that last one, and I agree. Nevertheless: you cannot question the veracity of the data, so you do what all intellectually bankrupt leftists do: attempt to smear the poster.

 

You offered a chart from someone with a political/economic agenda,

 

I had no idea you were an intellectually bankrupt leftist! I just assumed you were intellectually bankrupt.

 

[DanXIII 8]

Ah. The infamous "targeted" tax cuts.

 

All tax cuts are not equal, but I'll grant this last point (as we weren't talking about the Stimulus package in this equation). However, they are not the brunt of the stimulus, which was a big wet sloppy kiss to irresponsible businesses, etc. There were many who felt that it was critical to do so, including Congressman Paul Ryan, with whom I am nearly in constant agreement. It is ancillary to the point.

 

BTW: are you in the crowd that argues that the Stimulus was a good thing, and that it worked? If so - and if 40% of it was "tax cuts" - aren't you contradicting yourself? If tax cuts are needed to boost an economy, why are you against them here?

 

 

First off, I never said I was against cutting taxes or against extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans (including those who benefitted the most from them initially, the wealthiest 1%) so I'm not sure where the "why are you against them here?" question comes from. In fact, I've said the exact opposite and I even have a thread about it that was on Page 1 as of yesterday. I personally think and most economists agree that the last thing we should do in an economic downturn is raise taxes. That was tried in the 1930s and it exacerbated the Depression. My point in this debate is that we cannot have our cake and eat it too; if we are serious about balancing the budget and reducing the debt, spending is going to have to be cut AND taxes are going to have to be raised. There is no escaping this reality. There simply isn't enough spending to be cut to balance the budget and reduce the debt at this point. (FWIW, I don't personally think that the national debt is as grave a concern as the Chicken Littles of the world would like us to believe and now is not the time to focus on it. Any combination of tax hikes and spending cuts will only hurt the economy and prolong the downturn.)

 

The tax cuts were part of the stimulus. If you hate the stimulus and consider it a 'total failure' then you are by definition stating that the tax cuts were a failure. If you're in favor of some tax cuts and not others, fine. I agree that not all tax cuts are beneficial either in the short term or the long term. But taxes WERE cut as part of the stimulus, by billions of dollars. That cannot be denied. I don't hear much from the right or the left about these cuts. I do hear a lot about how the stimulus "is adding to the debt," though. Yet, strangely, that argument is absent when it comes to extending the Bush tax cuts .

 

As for the stimulus being a "good thing" or not, that is obviously debatable. I don't think a fair and accurate evaluation would lead one to a yes-or-no conclusion. As with most complex issues, it depends upon how success is measured, what benchmarks the evaluator (you and me) set and whether or not those benchmarks are realized.

 

It is pretty clear that the stimulus did help in some respects. The CBO has stated that we would be seeing unemployment above 11% right now absent the stimulus. I've seen other economists project as high as 15% unemployment. So, if that is your metric, the stimulus "worked." However, the Obama administration predicted that unemployment would not rise above 8% if the stimulus was passed. If that is your metric, the obviously the stimulus "did not work." It also kept most state governments afloat during the past fiscal year, saving hundreds of thousands of jobs. If you include the TARP in the stimulus discussion, most every economist worth his salt will tell you that stimulus averted economic collapse.

 

In my own opinion and in the opinion of a few economists out there, the stimulus, while enormous in scope, simply wasn't large enough to deal with the problem we were facing, which was virtually unprecedented.

 

I guess I said all that to say: Either the stimulus "worked," it "sort of worked," or it "failed," depending upon how the individual evaluates it. I'm in the "sort of worked" crowd.

 

[phillybear 366]

The tax cuts were part of the stimulus. If you hate the stimulus and consider it a 'total failure' then you are by definition stating that the tax cuts were a failure.

 

It is pretty clear that the stimulus did help in some respects. The CBO has stated that we would be seeing unemployment above 11% right now absent the stimulus. I've seen other economists project as high as 15% unemployment.

 

First of all, there were no tax cuts. I call bullsh!t. I have no idea whose taxes got cut, but I haven't heard one person say they got that benefit. My taxes went way up.

 

Secondly, it's pure speculation to claim the unemployment would have been worse. I submit that unemployment would be less than 7% now because by not passing a shitty stimulus and doing nothing would have helped fix the economy much faster and things would be getting back to normal right about now. Prove me wrong. You should probably note that economists are the weathermen of the business world. They are right about 4% of the time with their predictions and theories.

[DanXIII 8]

First of all, there were no tax cuts. I call bullsh!t. I have no idea whose taxes got cut, but I haven't heard one person say they got that benefit. My taxes went way up.

 

 

You can call bullsh!t all you want. Taxes were cut by up to $400 per individual and $800 per household for those earning less than $75,000 and $150,000, respectively. I processed enough returns this year to be fully aware of it, and I've already posted a link to the relevant info. If you don't like Wiki, here's an IRS Web site link with lots of information on the subject. If you didn't take advantage of the cuts then you should fire your accountant or stop trying to do your taxes yourself.

 

About.com breaks it down more clearly than the IRS site:

 

May 4 2010

The Making Work Pay tax credit is a new tax credit worth up to $400. This tax credit is temporary and will be in effect for the years 2009 and 2010 only.

 

Amount of the Credit

The credit is worth 6.2% of an individual's earned income, with a maximum credit of $400 per person. Married couples who file a joint tax return thus have a maximum credit of $800.

 

Other Tax Credits Can Reduce the Dollar Amount

The dollar amount of the Making Work Pay credit is reduced by any economic recovery payments. This is a one-time-only tax credit of $250 for Social Security recipients, retired railroad workers, and disabled veterans. Thus a Social Security recipient who is also working would be eligible for a Making Work Pay credit of only $150 (that's $400 minus the $250 economic recovery payment).

 

The dollar amount of the credit is also reduced any credit received by government retirees who are eligible for a new, one-time-only tax credit of $250. This credit is similar to the economic recovery payment.

 

Credit Phased-Out Based on Income

The Making Work Pay credit starts to be reduced for individual filers making $75,000 in modified adjusted gross income, or $150,000 for joint filers. The credit is reduced by 2% of the amount of income in excess of the $75,000 (or $150,000) threshold. The credit is completely phased out for individuals making $95,000 or more, or $190,000 for joint filers.

 

Earned Income Required for the Credit

Individuals with earned income are eligible for the Making Work Pay credit. Earned income for the Making Work Pay credit means income from wages and self-employment.

 

There's two modifications here, though. Any net self-employment income that is not taken into account for taxable income is also not taken into account for the Making Work Pay credit. Also, any combat pay which is otherwise excluded from income is taken into account for the purpose of calculating the Making Work Pay credit.

 

Who's Eligible, and Who's Not Eligible

Only US citizens and resident aliens with a valid Social Security number are eligible for the Making Work Pay credit.

 

Anyone claimed as a dependent is not eligible for the credit. That means kids who are working, including college students who are still claimed as dependents, are not eligible for the credit. Because paycheck withholding is going to be adjusted by employers, working dependents may need to adjust the withholding manually to avoid owing tax at the end of the year.

 

Maybe your parents still claim you as a dependent and that's why you didn't get the credit

 

Secondly, it's pure speculation to claim the unemployment would have been worse. I submit that unemployment would be less than 7% now because by not passing a shitty stimulus and doing nothing would have helped fix the economy much faster and things would be getting back to normal right about now. Prove me wrong. You should probably note that economists are the weathermen of the business world. They are right about 4% of the time with their predictions and theories.

 

The CBO's numbers are indeed estimates based on the best available information. Sorry, but until I see some other numbers posted by you along with your methodology for reaching those numbers, I will go with the CBO's estimates rather than estimates you pulled straight from your anus.

 

[MDC 7,882]

First of all, there were no tax cuts. I call bullsh!t. I have no idea whose taxes got cut, but I haven't heard one person say they got that benefit. My taxes went way up.

 

I live and work in the same city as you and my taxes went slightly down.

[phillybear 366]

You can call bullsh!t all you want. Taxes were cut by up to $400 per individual and $800 per household for those earning less than $75,000 and $150,000, respectively. I processed enough returns this year to be fully aware of it, and I've already posted a link to the relevant info. If you don't like Wiki, here's an IRS Web site link with lots of information on the subject. If you didn't take advantage of the cuts then you should fire your accountant or stop trying to do your taxes yourself.

 

About.com breaks it down more clearly than the IRS site:

 

 

 

Maybe your parents still claim you as a dependent and that's why you didn't get the credit

 

 

 

The CBO's numbers are indeed estimates based on the best available information. Sorry, but until I see some other numbers posted by you along with your methodology for reaching those numbers, I will go with the CBO's estimates rather than estimates you pulled straight from your anus.

 

 

I do my own taxes and one of my degrees is in Accounting. I've been doing my taxes forever. My tax return was 70% less this year. Our state sales tax went up, which is a non sequitor. I managed to clear less money this year with the same exact salary. What else do you want? I guess everybody else is cooking their books, while I'm playing it legit because I don't want to share a bunk with Wesley Snipes.

 

I can assure you that the credentials of my anus are impeccable.

[DanXIII 8]

I do my own taxes and one of my degrees is in Accounting. I've been doing my taxes forever. My tax return was 70% less this year. Our state sales tax went up. I managed to clear less money this year with the same exact salary. What else do you want? I guess everybody else is cooking their books, while I'm playing it legit because I don't want to share a bunk with Wesley Snipes.

 

I can't address your state taxes. That sucks if your state taxes went up. The discussion was about the federal stimulus package, part of which was that tax credit I outlined above. If your degree is truly in accounting then you of all people should know that if federal taxes go down and state taxes go up by more than the decrease in federal taxes then your have a net increase in taxation. That doesn't mean that no tax cuts were made at the federal level.

 

I can assure you that the credentials of my anus are impeccable.

 

Unless your anus has been published by a reputable economics journal it is hardly a reliable metric.

 

[MDC 7,882]

If your degree is truly in accounting then you of all people should know that if federal taxes go down and state taxes go up by more than the decrease in federal taxes then your have a net increase in taxation.

 

Obama's fault!

[phillybear 366]

I can't address your state taxes. That sucks if your state taxes went up. The discussion was about the federal stimulus package, part of which was that tax credit I outlined above. If your degree is truly in accounting then you of all people should know that if federal taxes go down and state taxes go up by more than the decrease in federal taxes then your have a net increase in taxation. That doesn't mean that no tax cuts were made at the federal level.

 

 

 

Unless your anus has been published by a reputable economics journal it is hardly a reliable metric.

 

 

Let me clarify. My federal taxes went up. There is absolutely no doubt of that. I continue to be mystified by those of you that say they went down for you.

[DanXIII 8]

Let me clarify. My federal taxes went up. There is absolutely no doubt of that. I continue to be mystified by those of you that say they went down for you.

 

I only mentioned state taxes because you did.

 

Did you take the credit? Did you earn more than $75k (or more than $150k if you were married filing jointly)? Did you win the lottery? Did you finally get around to reporting all those illicit gambling winz?

 

All of these et al could be reasons why your federal taxes went up. The fact remains that the tax credit was there.

 

[phillybear 366]

I only mentioned state taxes because you did.

 

Did you take the credit? Did you earn more than $75k (or more than $150k if you were married filing jointly)? Did you win the lottery? Did you finally get around to reporting all those illicit gambling winz?

 

All of these et al could be reasons why your federal taxes went up. The fact remains that the tax credit was there.

 

 

I'm one of the few around here that makes less than 75K apparently, according to the usual bravado. I'm just a government employee shuffling through life. Of course I'm not married. I did not win the lottery. I hid my illicit gambling profit (70 grand this year believe it or not )

[jerryskids 7,085]

First off, I never said I was against cutting taxes or against extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans (including those who benefitted the most from them initially, the wealthiest 1%) so I'm not sure where the "why are you against them here?" question comes from. In fact, I've said the exact opposite and I even have a thread about it that was on Page 1 as of yesterday. I personally think and most economists agree that the last thing we should do in an economic downturn is raise taxes. That was tried in the 1930s and it exacerbated the Depression. My point in this debate is that we cannot have our cake and eat it too; if we are serious about balancing the budget and reducing the debt, spending is going to have to be cut AND taxes are going to have to be raised. There is no escaping this reality. There simply isn't enough spending to be cut to balance the budget and reduce the debt at this point. (FWIW, I don't personally think that the national debt is as grave a concern as the Chicken Littles of the world would like us to believe and now is not the time to focus on it. Any combination of tax hikes and spending cuts will only hurt the economy and prolong the downturn.)

 

The tax cuts were part of the stimulus. If you hate the stimulus and consider it a 'total failure' then you are by definition stating that the tax cuts were a failure. If you're in favor of some tax cuts and not others, fine. I agree that not all tax cuts are beneficial either in the short term or the long term. But taxes WERE cut as part of the stimulus, by billions of dollars. That cannot be denied. I don't hear much from the right or the left about these cuts. I do hear a lot about how the stimulus "is adding to the debt," though. Yet, strangely, that argument is absent when it comes to extending the Bush tax cuts .

 

As for the stimulus being a "good thing" or not, that is obviously debatable. I don't think a fair and accurate evaluation would lead one to a yes-or-no conclusion. As with most complex issues, it depends upon how success is measured, what benchmarks the evaluator (you and me) set and whether or not those benchmarks are realized.

 

It is pretty clear that the stimulus did help in some respects. The CBO has stated that we would be seeing unemployment above 11% right now absent the stimulus. I've seen other economists project as high as 15% unemployment. So, if that is your metric, the stimulus "worked." However, the Obama administration predicted that unemployment would not rise above 8% if the stimulus was passed. If that is your metric, the obviously the stimulus "did not work." It also kept most state governments afloat during the past fiscal year, saving hundreds of thousands of jobs. If you include the TARP in the stimulus discussion, most every economist worth his salt will tell you that stimulus averted economic collapse.

 

In my own opinion and in the opinion of a few economists out there, the stimulus, while enormous in scope, simply wasn't large enough to deal with the problem we were facing, which was virtually unprecedented.

 

I guess I said all that to say: Either the stimulus "worked," it "sort of worked," or it "failed," depending upon how the individual evaluates it. I'm in the "sort of worked" crowd.

 

This is a well thought-out post. I'll submit to you a theory, in the interest of discussion: since the tax cuts in the stimulus were targeted to lower income earners, perhaps what we have learned is that such cuts are not effective, and instead we need to provide more cuts to higher earners.

[GettnHuge 2]

This is a well thought-out post. I'll submit to you a theory, in the interest of discussion: since the tax cuts in the stimulus were targeted to lower income earners, perhaps what we have learned is that such cuts are not effective, and instead we need to provide more cuts to higher earners.

 

tax cuts or tax credits

[IMMensaMind 462]

First off, I never said I was against cutting taxes or against extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans (including those who benefitted the most from them initially, the wealthiest 1%) so I'm not sure where the "why are you against them here?" question comes from. In fact, I've said the exact opposite and I even have a thread about it that was on Page 1 as of yesterday. I personally think and most economists agree that the last thing we should do in an economic downturn is raise taxes. That was tried in the 1930s and it exacerbated the Depression. My point in this debate is that we cannot have our cake and eat it too; if we are serious about balancing the budget and reducing the debt, spending is going to have to be cut AND taxes are going to have to be raised. There is no escaping this reality. There simply isn't enough spending to be cut to balance the budget and reduce the debt at this point. (FWIW, I don't personally think that the national debt is as grave a concern as the Chicken Littles of the world would like us to believe and now is not the time to focus on it. Any combination of tax hikes and spending cuts will only hurt the economy and prolong the downturn.)

 

You say lots of valid things here. I too do not agree that the debt is anywhere near the bugaboo that it is made out to be; no more than a mortgage is to the average homeowner.

 

Unless the homeowner suddenly loses their source of income. Raising taxes is the equivalent in this analogy: it harms the mechanism which earns the income to pay the debt.

 

I do not support raising taxes whatsoever; I believe we must do the opposite; particularly corporate taxes.

 

We can absolutely shrink the budget by more than enough to (1) balance the budget and (2) provide the needed revenue to pay down the debt; it's just a matter of what amortization schedule we're willing to tolerate. Like a mortgage, I favor extending it as long as possible to allow the remaining revenue to stay in the private sector, where it can grow the most effectively.

 

The tax cuts were part of the stimulus. If you hate the stimulus and consider it a 'total failure' then you are by definition stating that the tax cuts were a failure. If you're in favor of some tax cuts and not others, fine. I agree that not all tax cuts are beneficial either in the short term or the long term. But taxes WERE cut as part of the stimulus, by billions of dollars. That cannot be denied. I don't hear much from the right or the left about these cuts. I do hear a lot about how the stimulus "is adding to the debt," though. Yet, strangely, that argument is absent when it comes to extending the Bush tax cuts .

 

Do you have a specific accounting of these cuts? They do not sound like they affected everyone the same, and - in fact - they sound more like credits to me than cuts. The Stimulus package was not part of my argument here, remember: you introduced it. I think it is ancillary to this discussion.

 

As for the stimulus being a "good thing" or not, that is obviously debatable. I don't think a fair and accurate evaluation would lead one to a yes-or-no conclusion. As with most complex issues, it depends upon how success is measured, what benchmarks the evaluator (you and me) set and whether or not those benchmarks are realized.

 

I agree. Too complicated an amorphous to mention here.

 

It is pretty clear that the stimulus did help in some respects. The CBO has stated that we would be seeing unemployment above 11% right now absent the stimulus. I've seen other economists project as high as 15% unemployment. So, if that is your metric, the stimulus "worked."

 

My thoughts on it are mixed. I believe actual unemployment hovers between 13-18% now; I believe the published numbers are massaged for political reasons.

 

Summarized roughly, I think that what Government has torn asunder was partially ameliorated by more Government interference, and it was somewhat necessary. I also believe, however, that Government - through its meddling (Freddie and Fannie being only one of many examples) created the monster that it then injected a "fix" for: a fix which would never have been necessary had Government remained in the form that I endorse (strict Constitutionally enumerated powers only).

 

However, the Obama administration predicted that unemployment would not rise above 8% if the stimulus was passed. If that is your metric, the obviously the stimulus "did not work." It also kept most state governments afloat during the past fiscal year, saving hundreds of thousands of jobs. If you include the TARP in the stimulus discussion, most every economist worth his salt will tell you that stimulus averted economic collapse.

 

I think predicting what will happen economically is stupid - particularly if those who are predicting use economic models with which I disagree.

 

While I agree that it appears that we averted collapse, I would have to add the qualifying phrase for now to the end of that sentence, as I'm not convinced that we did ourselves good, but instead averted serious harm in the short term to virtually assure far more lethal harm later.

 

In my own opinion and in the opinion of a few economists out there, the stimulus, while enormous in scope, simply wasn't large enough to deal with the problem we were facing, which was virtually unprecedented.

 

Keynesianism. Krugman says this, as does Thomas Friedman. I disagree with them both; I believe that the cure is worse than the disease.

 

Germany followed a path other than ours; Germany is one of the only economies in Europe which is now thriving as a result.

 

I guess I said all that to say: Either the stimulus "worked," it "sort of worked," or it "failed," depending upon how the individual evaluates it. I'm in the "sort of worked" crowd.

 

 

I'm sort of there, but with the serious qualifier of describing it like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Voltaire 5,489]

(FWIW, I don't personally think that the national debt is as grave a concern as the Chicken Littles of the world would like us to believe and now is not the time to focus on it. Any combination of tax hikes and spending cuts will only hurt the economy and prolong the downturn.)

 

This is where you and I have serious, serious disagreement. We've been running up massive debt for 30 years. We had a brief hiatus in the late 90s but we're back on track with that again.

 

Deficits eat away at the fiscal health of the country. They prevent the government from being able to address our long term problems and limit flexibilty. The bills that don't get paid don't go away, they accumulate. We pay compound interest on them. The burden of not asking today's taxpayers to pay for today's government means that we're asking tomorrow's government to pay for tomorrow and today.

 

And both parties are responsible for this, the Dems with their massive government handout programs that they defend into the ground and the GOP for refusing to pay for anything they or the Dems do.

 

This tax cut has been a fiscal disaster. In both good time and bad, it has never -and will never- come close to raising enough money to pay for all the things that the government does. We'll never see this focker expire now and we'll watch continue to America slip away to drown in a sea of bad debt and red ink.

 

Pay attention to Ireland and Greece. I'm 39, I suspect we'll be seeing that happening to the US in my lifetime.

[Voltaire 5,489]

 

 

Keynesianism. Krugman says this, as does Thomas Friedman. I disagree with them both; I believe that the cure is worse than the disease.

 

 

 

I've read pretty much everything both of these two have written for ten years. The idea of the stimulus being too small, is all about Krugman.

 

The stimulus really has little to do with Friedman at all. I don't know why his name gets dragged in. Friedman's whole schtick is global competitiveness, promoting innovation, education, technology, and green energy. A lot of foreign policy too as it wraps in with the global competitiveness bit. Friedman didn't like the bailouts, as for his position on the stimulus, I can't hardly recall.

[Voltaire 5,489]

 

I'm all for extending UC. I'd rather my taxes go to UC, than paying to stitch up some beaner who fell on a lawnmower.

 

I disagree. I'd far rather the money go to the person willing to push the lawnmower than the leach next door who thinks such work beneath is him as he walks by on his way to the mailbox to get his UC check for the 26th month in a row.

[GettnHuge 2]

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

 

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f— the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.

 

“It wasn’t loud,” the Nevada Democrat said. “It was just expressing frustration from a very frustrated Member.”

 

 

 

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) was also overheard saying that “we can’t trust him” not to cave to Republicans and extend the tax cuts again in two years, according to a Democratic source.

 

The anger aimed at the bill was widespread. As Democrats moved to block the bill from coming up on the floor, chants of “Just say no!” could be heard by reporters outside the room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

There is a ton of political posturing going on right now. I think the Republican leadership is weak as hell; they should have ground down Obama far more severely than they did - they have the political mandate right now to do far more than simply keep the tax rates the same as they are now.

 

We need cuts to stimulate this economy. I'm concerned that Obama is being given the ammo - as illegitimate as it is - to claim that "hey: I tried it their way; the economy hasn't recovered - we need to hike the taxes on the rich, or we'll be stuck in this mess forever".

 

The guy actually had the stones to say that Tax Cuts (read: he's trying to claim that simply keeping the rates where they are right now are cuts ) are needed to stimulate the economy.

 

That's funny: leftists have been bashing Conservatives for saying the same damned thing. This was just a topic here. Obama is countering the opinion of the left?

 

Not hardly. I believe he knows that tax cuts stimulate the economy, but I also believe he doesn't want the economy stimulated in that manner; it undermines the power of the Dems, and refutes his Socialist ideology. I believe he wants to posture that he's "cutting taxes, because every economist he's read says it's necessary (smokescreen)", and then ride in later and claim that he was trying to get along and compromise, and that it failed.

 

Look out: far too many people are going to fall for this.

[GettnHuge 2]

There is a ton of political posturing going on right now. I think the Republican leadership is weak as hell; they should have ground down Obama far more severely than they did - they have the political mandate right now to do far more than simply keep the tax rates the same as they are now.

 

We need cuts to stimulate this economy. I'm concerned that Obama is being given the ammo - as illegitimate as it is - to claim that "hey: I tried it their way; the economy hasn't recovered - we need to hike the taxes on the rich, or we'll be stuck in this mess forever".

 

The guy actually had the stones to say that Tax Cuts (read: he's trying to claim that simply keeping the rates where they are right now are cuts ) are needed to stimulate the economy.

 

That's funny: leftists have been bashing Conservatives for saying the same damned thing. This was just a topic here. Obama is countering the opinion of the left?

 

Not hardly. I believe he knows that tax cuts stimulate the economy, but I also believe he doesn't want the economy stimulated in that manner; it undermines the power of the Dems, and refutes his Socialist ideology. I believe he wants to posture that he's "cutting taxes, because every economist he's read says it's necessary (smokescreen)", and then ride in later and claim that he was trying to get along and compromise, and that it failed.

 

Look out: far too many people are going to fall for this.

 

do you think it's possible that the Pelosi Dems really would like to raise all of these taxes and this is their way to get it without looking like that's what they want?

[DanXIII 8]

This is where you and I have serious, serious disagreement. We've been running up massive debt for 30 years. We had a brief hiatus in the late 90s but we're back on track with that again.

 

Deficits eat away at the fiscal health of the country. They prevent the government from being able to address our long term problems and limit flexibilty. The bills that don't get paid don't go away, they accumulate. We pay compound interest on them. The burden of not asking today's taxpayers to pay for today's government means that we're asking tomorrow's government to pay for tomorrow and today.

 

And both parties are responsible for this, the Dems with their massive government handout programs that they defend into the ground and the GOP for refusing to pay for anything they or the Dems do.

 

This tax cut has been a fiscal disaster. In both good time and bad, it has never -and will never- come close to raising enough money to pay for all the things that the government does. We'll never see this focker expire now and we'll watch continue to America slip away to drown in a sea of bad debt and red ink.

 

Pay attention to Ireland and Greece. I'm 39, I suspect we'll be seeing that happening to the US in my lifetime.

 

I agree that debt is an issue we will have to eventually tackle. We should have been tackling it during the booms of the 80s, 90s and 00s. We didn't, though. There is no question that the piper's coming for his rat money.

 

I just don't think it makes sense to tackle deficits during economic downturns. When the public isn't spending, gubmint is the spender of last resort. When that dries up, recessions become depressions.

 

Cut taxes (don't just "extend" tax cuts, CUT taxes) and increase spending in the short term. When we get back to something close to full employment, THEN you tackle the deficit. At least, that's how it SHOULD work.

 

/idealism off

 

[PackYourNut 47]

 

I just don't think it makes sense to tackle deficits during economic downturns. When the public isn't spending, gubmint is the spender of last resort. When that dries up, recessions become depressions.

 

Cut taxes (don't just "extend" tax cuts, CUT taxes) and increase spending in the short term. When we get back to something close to full employment, THEN you tackle the deficit. At least, that's how it SHOULD work.

 

/idealism off

 

 

 

Exactly! If we don't get people spending money again, we are focked!

[IMMensaMind 462]

do you think it's possible that the Pelosi Dems really would like to raise all of these taxes and this is their way to get it without looking like that's what they want?

 

Not just Pelosi Dems: all Dems.

[Baby Jesus 0]

I agree that debt is an issue we will have to eventually tackle. We should have been tackling it during the booms of the 80s, 90s and 00s. We didn't, though. There is no question that the piper's coming for his rat money.

 

I just don't think it makes sense to tackle deficits during economic downturns. When the public isn't spending, gubmint is the spender of last resort. When that dries up, recessions become depressions.

 

Cut taxes (don't just "extend" tax cuts, CUT taxes) and increase spending in the short term. When we get back to something close to full employment, THEN you tackle the deficit. At least, that's how it SHOULD work.

 

/idealism off

 

I guess my big issue is the fact that the upper class says "Cut our taxes and then we can hire." Well, they've had the tax cuts since Bush implemented them, all the bailouts, and Wall Street is doing pretty damn good at the moment. Yet, the hiring isn't there and hasn't been there. There has been no trickle down.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I guess my big issue is the fact that the upper class says "Cut our taxes and then we can hire." Well, they've had the tax cuts since Bush implemented them, all the bailouts, and Wall Street is doing pretty damn good at the moment. Yet, the hiring isn't there and hasn't been there. There has been no trickle down.

 

It is my belief that this recession has been prolonged by several factors, which affect us short term, and may doom us long-term:

 

1) The massive commitment to printing money/handing out stimulus is causing business unease because of the inflationary worry that such actions create (even though we're in the midst of an epic battle between inflationary and deflationary pressures). This is causing a sentiment in businesses to circle the wagons.

 

2) The massive commitment to spending trillions of dollars by Socializing medicine, and changing the rules wrt health care compensation, which is putting a much higher burden on businesses. This too is causing businesses to be paralyzed.

 

3) The decidedly anti-business sentiment of this Administration (1099s for all transactions? srsly? Do those nincompoops realize how burdensome/expensive such a thing would be)? This too is creating uncertainty; uncertainty causes inaction.

 

4) The prior talk of hiking taxes by not continuing the rates set forth by Bush. Uncertainty.

 

It's about more than tax rates this time. It's about a whole host of other issues. Previously, every major tax cut was met with a drop in the umemployment rate (60's, 80's, 90's and 00's - under JFK; Reagan; Clinton; Bush).

[Gepetto 1,454]

Obama must finally understand that nobody believes in what he says or does because of the incompetence he's shown. Bill Clinton back in our highest office. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101210/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_clinton So much for 8 year term limit.

 

 

– 56 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Bill Clinton implored Democrats to back the tax-cut deal that President Barack Obama negotiated with Republicans as the former president made a surprise appearance with Obama in the White House briefing room Friday — and later took over the podium.

 

"I don't believe there is a better deal out there," Clinton told reporters who'd been summoned at a moment's notice to see the former chief executive back the current one. Clinton and Obama had just finished a private meeting in the Oval Office.

 

 

Obama said it was a "terrific meeting" and then yielded to Clinton. The voluble former president took center stage, and Obama left part-way through his remarks, saying he had holiday parties to attend. Clinton not only provided an economic tutorial but riffed on several topics, including the need for the Senate to ratify a U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty.

 

"Both sides are going to have to eat some things they don't like," Clinton told reporters about the tax deal. "We don't want to slip back into a recession. We've got to keep this thing going and accelerate its pace. I think this is the best available option."

 

The pact would extend cuts in income tax rates for all earners that would otherwise expire next month, renew long-term jobless benefits and trim Social Security taxes for one year. A number of liberal Democrats say it gives away too much to Republicans, and a provision that's particularly irksome to Democrats cuts estate taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

 

Nonetheless the measure appears headed for Senate approval after negotiators added a few relatively modest sweeteners to promote ethanol and other forms of alternative energy. It's unclear whether House Democrats, who are most opposed, will be able to demand changes that go much further.

 

Clinton gave the package his full-throated endorsement, even while noting that he opposes the extension of upper-income tax cuts — though he himself will benefit from it.

 

"I personally believe this is a good deal and the best he could have gotten under the circumstances," Clinton said, urging fellow Democrats to support it.

 

"If I was in office now, I would have done what the president has done," he said.

 

Clinton, whose focus on the economy helped get him elected in 1992, said he spends about an hour a day studying up on it and trying to figure out what to do about it. He said the proposal to trim Social Security taxes is the "single most effective tax cut" to support economic activity and create jobs. "I expect it to lower the unemployment rate and keep us going," he said.

 

"In my opinion, this is a good bill and I hope that my fellow Democrats will support it," Clinton said. "I think this is a much, much better agreement than would be reached were we to wait until January."

 

Republicans, newly emboldened after an election that next year will put the GOP in charge of the House and trim the Democratic majority in the Senate, stood united against Obama's insistence that the tax rates be kept in place only for those earning up to $250,000 a year. Republicans and some Democrats argued that the economic climate would not support higher taxes and urged that the rates be extended for all.

 

In announcing the agreement, Obama said he wanted to reach a deal before the year-end deadline because a political stalemate or drawn-out fight between the two parties would hurt the economic recovery that is under way.

 

Clinton, who was confronted with similar circumstances after the congressional elections two years into his first term, said he agreed with Obama's rationale. The former president also urged the parties to "row" together.

 

"After the '94 election I said that the American people, in their infinite wisdom, had put us both in the same boat, so we're going to either row or sink," he said. "And I want us to row."

 

He said Republicans and Democrats both have to accept the message voters sent in the last election, which is that they want the president and lawmakers from the opposing party to compromise.

 

"Everybody's got to give a little," Clinton said.