Why is he talking?

Good Question Doc, btw, thanks for a reminder to look back into my first favorite band. The loudest band in the land!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--ownTh3L54

And here is one for the Ladies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeUosbClag8


Okay to your question, I think the focus should be more on the spending side of the federal government's budget failures. More than enough tax revenue has been coming into treasury for decades to serve the legitimate and constitutional needs of the federal government.

It has gone way past what it's role and legal obligations are. The 550% growth in, inflation adjusted, annual spending since 1965 is where I think the problem is centrally located. The overtaxing of individuals and the heavy burden to business of regulation and tax compliance are significant factors in the continuing weakness in this country's economy. Additional factors are overly complicated and conflicting federal regulations, continuing lack of consistency, structure and enforcement of the laws we are to be bound by. Originally Posted by SirReal

Shouldn't the tax revenue side of the equation and the spending side equal each other? If you are going to reduce taxes. shouldn't reduce spending to reflect lower revenue. The bill of goods we were sold by reagan, was that reducing taxes would create so much economic growth that it would make up for the lower tax rates and then some. It didn't work and not even close. reagan had to increase taxes 12 times because he cut them too low initially. Why didn't those tax increases kill the economy?
I assume included in the "madatory" spending included in your graph is the defense department. Is it madatory that we waste 100's of billions of dollars a year on the defense department? defense spending increases have been the biggest driver of deficit spending since the time of reagan. In inflation adjusted dollars, we spend double on defense than we did in 1965.

Shouldn't the tax revenue side of the equation and the spending side equal each other? If you are going to reduce taxes. shouldn't reduce spending to reflect lower revenue. The bill of goods we were sold by reagan, was that reducing taxes would create so much economic growth that it would make up for the lower tax rates and then some. It didn't work and not even close. reagan had to increase taxes 12 times because he cut them too low initially. Why didn't those tax increases kill the economy?
I assume included in the "madatory" spending included in your graph is the defense department. Is it madatory that we waste 100's of billions of dollars a year on the defense department? defense spending increases have been the biggest driver of deficit spending since the time of reagan. In inflation adjusted dollars, we spend double on defense than we did in 1965.
Originally Posted by drluv1

These Tea Turkeys do not understand simple math. They bitch about half the country not paying taxes (they confuse Federal progressive taxes with local regressive taxes too) yet if you talk about raising taxes they gather around Grover and scream ''No compromise!:.

Already established that taxes on a commodity does impede use of said commodity: and "labor" is a commodity. Why do you keep denying that? Here's a study (which cites other studies with similar findings) that makes the overt connection you continue to deny:

"Estimates controlling for plant-specific trends suggest that a 10% increase in payroll taxes reduces wages by between 1.4% and 2.3% and in employment by between 4% and 5%. There also appears to be less shifting and greater disemployment for production than for nonproduction workers. Less shifting and more disemployment for production workers may be due to the fact that the minimum wage is more likely to bind [be inflexible] for this group of workers. Less pass-through for production workers could also be due to the fact that these workers are more likely to turn to the informal sector if their wages are lowered. An implication of these results is that reductions in payroll taxes for low-wage workers, often proposed as a way to boost the relative demand of low-skill workers, may be an effective measure to reduce unemployment ..."

http://www.uh.edu/~adkugler/Kugler&Kugler_EDCC.pdf

BTW, imagine how a 40% reduction in the overall economic fiasco might actually have translated into a 40% reduction in the misery suffered by the American public for the past 5 years.

But unlike Lehman Brothers, et al, where the American public wasn't legally "obligated" to bail them out, Fannie and Freddie put the American taxpayer on the hook. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

A more accurate statement would be that tax increases CAN impede the use of a commodity. You've never heard of a commodity with an inelastic demand? "sin taxes" don't have much effect till they become particularly onerous. Your contention is still disproved by states with higher tax rates having lower unemployment rates.
The word"suggest", as used in your quote above, does not mean prove. From the Kugler and Kugler study you cited, the top of the 2nd page states " Empirical evidence on the impact of payroll taxation for different countries is also mixed. Previous results range from full shifting to little shifting and large disemployment effects". Did you read the entire study? Again if what this study says is true, why are unemployment rates in states with higher taxes lower than in states with lower taxes? that empirical evidence easily disproves you contention.

BTW, the 40% figure you cited is not 40% of the problem. You somehow ignore the dishonest action of the investment houses because they aren't part of the government. DID you ever hear of "too big to fail"? You also ignore the greed of Americans. Did you really think that real estate would keep appreciating at 10 or 20%? I thought capitalists had perfect information? Did you see the $13 billion dollar fine for JP morgan? According to the BBC, they got fined for selling mortgage based assets, which were mainly supposed to be risk free home loans but contained a mix of investment and "those assets are widely thought to have played a central role in the near collapse of the banking system when banks realised in 2007 that many of their assets were worth a fraction of their official book value".

These Tea Turkeys do not understand simple math. They bitch about half the country not paying taxes (they confuse Federal progressive taxes with local regressive taxes too) yet if you talk about raising taxes they gather around Grover and scream ''No compromise!:. Originally Posted by WTF

Not to mention 70% of them are retired and don't want their medicare touched. Socialized medicine is good enough for them, but not the rest of us. They wrap themselves in the constitution like it was some kind of perfect document. The founder fathers intentionally left it open to amendment because they knew they weren't perfect and to allow future generations to deal with the unforseen. They clearly missed a big one with the woman's right to vote. They whine about the Obamacare website cost overrun but ignore cost overruns 10 times that magnatude which are common in the defense department. They say that hate socialism, but don't say a word about the socialistic way we contract for defense services.

Did you see the $13 billion dollar fine for JP morgan? According to the BBC, they got fined for selling mortgage based assets, which were mainly supposed to be risk free home loans but contained a mix of investment and " assets are widely thought to have played a central role in the near collapse of the banking system when banks realised in 2007 that many of their assets were worth a fraction of their official book value". Originally Posted by drluv1

While I agree with your prior statements, this one is a head scratcher. The government wanted/forced JP to buy Bears and WaMu and then fined them because of all the toxic home loans in those portfolios.

These Tea Turkeys do not understand simple math. They bitch about half the country not paying taxes (they confuse Federal progressive taxes with local regressive taxes too) yet if you talk about raising taxes they gather around Grover and scream ''No compromise!:. Originally Posted by WTF

+1000

A more accurate statement would be that tax increases CAN impede the use of a commodity. You've never heard of a commodity with an inelastic demand? "sin taxes" don't have much effect till they become particularly onerous. Your contention is still disproved by states with higher tax rates having lower unemployment rates.
The word"suggest", as used in your quote above, does not mean prove. From the Kugler and Kugler study you cited, the top of the 2nd page states " Empirical evidence on the impact of payroll taxation for different countries is also mixed. Previous results range from full shifting to little shifting and large disemployment effects". Did you read the entire study? Again if what this study says is true, why are unemployment rates in states with higher taxes lower than in states with lower taxes? that empirical evidence easily disproves you contention.

BTW, the 40% figure you cited is not 40% of the problem. You somehow ignore the dishonest action of the investment houses because they aren't part of the government. DID you ever hear of "too big to fail"? You also ignore the greed of Americans. Did you really think that real estate would keep appreciating at 10 or 20%? I thought capitalists had perfect information? Did you see the $13 billion dollar fine for JP morgan? According to the BBC, they got fined for selling mortgage based assets, which were mainly supposed to be risk free home loans but contained a mix of investment and "those assets are widely thought to have played a central role in the near collapse of the banking system when banks realised in 2007 that many of their assets were worth a fraction of their official book value". Originally Posted by drluv1

You chide bankers for doing what bankers do while ignoring the criminality of complicit politicians: Dodd, Summers, Franks, etc. The politicians were hired to watch the bankers, but they took their cut and ran leaving the American public holding the bag.

You are wrong. That one study cites three other studies with the same findings. Further, the "vagaries between countries" compared you so readily play up relate to the availability of "unofficial" -- off the record -- labor markets in those countries and whether or not those countries mandate a minimum wage (which makes unemployment more probable in the wake of a tax increase). So yes, IBH read the report.

What you deny is basic Econ 101:

"The General Theory [Keynes (1936)] argues that workers strongly resist cuts in nominal contractual wage levels. Because of this, after a shock to the economy which reduces the equilibrium level of nominal contractual wages, the contractual wage remains above the equilibrium level and unemployment results."

And that is reflected in this Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) graph which depicts either a wage cut or increased unemployment will result from increased taxation.

http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/4343154.pdf

anything more current, douchebag.

anything more current, douchebag. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Keynes was quoted in the OECD article -- the more "current" article your ignorant, dumb-fuck golem ass didn't bother to read, you dumb-fuck golem jackass.

anything more current, douchebag. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Impressive contribution to the conversation.

Impressive contribution to the conversation. Originally Posted by SirReal

as was yours ... Brilliant !!