pretty charts on the federal money woes
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
|
Heh.
http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3605
http://andrewsulliva...rt-of-the-da.html Recall what Obama said in Baltimore at the Republican retreat: CONGRESSMAN HENSARLING: That's the question. You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? That's the question, Mr. President. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
okay, I get it
obama's new taxes will fix that budget projection
http://www.cato-at-l...ato+at+Liberty%29 If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
|
CATO?
Reynolds is an ideologue who works at a "libertarian" think tank that supplies Republican talking points. I wouldn't trust their "analysis". Reynolds is a Palin fan, too...
If you want an unbiased look at where the budget is headed, read this: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=465 (From January) [...] That's the situation before Obama and the Democrats are able to shift the course of the budget. It was Bush's huge tax cuts, the wars, Medicare Part D, and refusal to pay for any of them, and the crash as a result of Bush Administration policies, that blew a hole in the budget - not Obama and the Democrats. The long-term health care costs (which are the greatest part of the projected federal budget increases) will be addressed by the HCR bill, if the Democrats gather the courage to pass it.... Cheers, Scott. |
|
adressed in the above discussion, CBO projections are always
off when it comes to revenue generated
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
|
Hanging out at CATO will shrivel your few remaining
little grey cells. They were around beating the drums for escalations in Vietnam, while you were still in swaddling clothes and trying to get a knee-trembler. Clearly their insight hasn't improved, since.
|
|
they were beating meat on main st at the same time
what does that have to do with the well known fact that rich people can afford to move the money around tax incraeses, poor people wont. Thats why rosy projections of income from taxing rich people dont pan out, lately check maryland and nyc, didnt work out very well did it.
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
|
Let me summarize.
We can't raise taxes on the rich because they'll move their money elsewhere.
We can't raise taxes on the rich because they won't work as hard and the economy will suffer. We can't raise taxes on the rich because they'll hire accountants and find all the loopholes. We can't raise taxes on the rich because it will hurt the poor and the middle class because they'll just pass them on. We can't raise taxes on the rich because the poor don't pay income taxes and that's unfair. Did I miss anything? I guess the only answer is to say that if someone earns over $1M a year they should be exempt from all taxes. I guess we'd be living in a paradise then. Like Russia, or maybe Somalia. :-/ There's a lot of history that tells us that each of those suppositions is wrong. For example, Krugman, from 2006 in Rolling Stone - http://www.rollingst...th_transfer/print [...] HTH. Cheers, Scott. |
|
you only need one line, raise taxes on the rich all you want
you wont collect a dime more than you get now because rich people write the tax laws
that help you any? If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
|
Didn't seem to be a problem under Clinton. Why is that?
|
|
more words please :-)
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
|
Ok.
The arguments seem to me to be:
1) Raising taxes always destroys incentives, always ultimately reduces revenue, and is always counter-productive because people will (rather than doing what makes the most sense to raise their incomes, make their businesses more successful, plan for their retirement) do whatever is necessary to keep from paying any tax increase. They'll lobby congress; they'll invest in tax shelters; they'll move their money off-shore; they'll quit. 2) The conclusive evidence from the Reagan and Clinton years is that one can have strong economic growth, reductions in unemployment and increases in employment, substantial reductions in the deficits, and increasing incomes for the average working person, even when taxes on the upper income groups are increased. The conclusive evidence from the 2000s is that cutting taxes on the wealthy does not increase economic growth over the long term. It does not raise average incomes. It does not increase job growth. It does not reduce the federal deficit or the federal debt. It does not force the government to shrink. It does little except increase wealth and income disparities to levels comparable to banana republics. So which is it? Is #1 correct, or is #2 correct? They can't both be right. Either the ideology under #1 is wrong, or the facts of #2 are wrong. I vote for #1 being wrong. If you think #2 is wrong, then you need to present evidence. I've presented evidence why #2 is correct. IOW, those of us in the reality-based community are unpersuaded that the last 30 years of "voodoo economics" was an insufficient test. The supply-siders' rhetoric has been shown to be incoherent and wrong. (E.g. they don't care about deficits even though they talk about them incessantly when a Democrat is president - http://yglesias.thin...the-deficit-2.php ) Clap Louder is unpersuasive. http://www.balloon-j.../?page_id=28596#C It is possible, and necessary, to increase taxes on the wealthy to begin solving many of our economic problems. HTH. ;-) Cheers, Scott. |
|
2. is badly stated
reagan cut taxes, bush1 imposed them and clinton cut taxes but more importantly clinton reigned in spending, a better republican than Bush2 ever was. Please restate your choices in a more plausable manner.
Taxing the rich is nescessary. Getting people making above 101k a year to pay paroll taxes is also mandatory. Thinking that America's financial answer is a wealth transfer from the people to the state is wrong. If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
|
Like how?
How will "taxing the rich" not be interpreted as "a wealth transfer from the people to the state"? I've never seen the one without people claiming the other.
--
Drew |
|
Your version is worse. ;-)
Reagan cut taxes, then raised taxes when he (and the Congress) saw the cuts were blowing a hole in the budget.
http://krugman.blogs...eagan-taxes-jobs/ http://en.wikipedia....ility_Act_of_1982 The tax increases didn't hurt the economy and the deficit started to come down. Clinton raised the top marginal rates (up to 39.6% for individuals, and up to 35% for corporations) and the deficit changed to a surplus (yes, it really was a surplus). http://en.wikipedia....ation_Act_of_1993 The economy under Clinton was the largest peace-time expansion in our history. I think my version stands. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |