BOOM! There goes the market!

In a recent Iowa forum, not one single Republican candidate raised their hand to raise taxes. For a 10 to 1 entitlement reduction vs. tax increase, I might have considered raising my hand. Do you think there should be a tax increase on people making more than a million a year? Is that really enough to deal with our debt? Originally Posted by cookie man

*IF* we could do the above with the REAL spending cuts coming first...you might have more people agreeing to it. Reagan was snookered by this, Bush 1 as well. REAL cuts *never* happen because they typically "promised in the out years"...which means the current Congress agrees to let the next Congress do it. BZZZZT. Never happens. But the Tax increases are demanded to be immediate.

I'd like to see the cuts signed into law, begin to happen, see them in the next fiscal year....THEN decide if taxes need to be raised.

Less Government spending...err, borrowing....frees up money for the private sector. Why do you the Economy has stalled over the past 2-3 years??? Easy...Our Government has swallowed up $1.5 TRILLION that would have been invested in many other different things...instead it's gone straight to the blackhole of death called "The Federal Government"...it's taken it's overhead (40%?) and spilled out the rest to it's favorite non-producing tasks.

I'm still confused how any thinking person can argue that taking a dollar from Person A, paying a government flunky to get that into the hands of Person B, can yield more economic growth than allowing Person A to spend his own fucking dollar?

Do people really think that the Government knows better how to spend my own damn money than I do as the earner?

By the time you factor in the government's cut to "handle" the money, you can't even give that entire dollar to Person B in the first place so right off the bat you have to cover that loss and then when you see people quoting a multiplier of 1. whatever, they seem to forget the need to factor in the Economic LOSS to person A.

Or if the money is borrowed, the interest cost PLUS the handling fee means even less to Person B. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

In other words, you think Somalia has a better model for society than we do? You should move there and try it out. Let us know how you like it. Maybe you can start the local chapter of ECCIE.

Without government oversight, people wouldn't spend money on anything but their own personal needs. Spending that provides the infrastructure that businesses rely on, which raises the standard of living and quality of life for everyone, wouldn't happen. That would lead to economic decline.

Some governments are better than others at executing their mandates, but the notion that a better result would be achieved if all of our spending was discretionary is nonsense. We would end up with an American version of Somalia. Washington is showing us what happens when we elect the wrong people to represent us. The problem is, our elected representatives are a reflection of society. Idiot Republican representatives were elected by idiot Republican voters. Weak Democrat representatives were elected by weak Democrat voters. The cycle will repeat until there is a cultural change within the voting populace. The Tea Party is evidence that we're headed in the wrong direction. Maybe when the 40 million hard-working illegal immigrants–and their offspring–finally get to vote it will shake things up for the better. Who knows.

The time has come and past to leave Bush out of the economic delima. Obama owns the economy now, deal with it like a leader. Originally Posted by cookie man

Agreed.

The problems we're dealing with are still primarily the results of the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush regime. Most of the deficit was passed on, driven by unnecessary wars, unfunded tax cuts for special interests, etc., etc.

However, failure to address these problems is now a failure of the Obama administration. To be fair though, the Republican house is a big part of the problem because they're preventing the Obama administration from fixing some of those problems, like ending the unfunded tax cuts.

And both parties should be purged for the damage they have done to our economy with their public bickering and politicking. This is the poorest collection of representatives - on both sides - that I've experienced in my lifetime.

If ever there were a time for a new moderate and intelligent party to form, now is the time.

L4L,

You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy. So why do you continue to blame Bush for the spending issues? CONGRESS caused these spending issues. One man, Bush, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. can't cause these issues on their own. While they can certainly provide leadership one way or another, in the end it isn't in their job description.

If congress had any balls they would control the spending. They don't. And frankly you arent being "fair" to say the republican congress is causing the issue now. Complete nonsense. Congress had two years of control with the Executive branch to get shit done. NOTHING substantial happened. NO ONE wants to lead because the really hard decisions because they THINK it won't likely get them re-elected. Well that certainly backfired, because they lost control of the house by not doing anything constructive.

And blaming the Tea Party? Please. While many of their ideas have been bastardized by by the fringe of all groups the core mandate of the Tea party is government responsibility. The fringe groups are the loudest but don't make yourself look ignorant by saying the Tea Party is causing these issues. These issues have been around far longer than the Tea Party. That is just disingenuous.

If one were to begin compiling an "outrage of the day" list of actions relating to this topic, here's a good candidate for an initial entry:

http://www.businessinsider.com/gover...to-lend-2011-8

That's an important component of the collection of reasons that savers are being punished while many banks are acting in a restrained manner (to say the least) about lending.

Of course, why engage in typical lending practices when you can play the carry trade to a fat payday? Two more years of guaranteed ZIRP is an incredibly large continuing bailout.

(And the bonus pool is as big as ever.)

L4L,

You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy. So why do you continue to blame Bush for the spending issues? CONGRESS caused these spending issues. One man, Bush, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. can't cause these issues on their own. While they can certainly provide leadership one way or another, in the end it isn't in their job description.

If congress had any balls they would control the spending. They don't. And frankly you arent being "fair" to say the republican congress is causing the issue now. Complete nonsense. Congress had two years of control with the Executive branch to get shit done. NOTHING substantial happened. NO ONE wants to lead because the really hard decisions because they THINK it won't likely get them re-elected. Well that certainly backfired, because they lost control of the house by not doing anything constructive.

And blaming the Tea Party? Please. While many of their ideas have been bastardized by by the fringe of all groups the core mandate of the Tea party is government responsibility. The fringe groups are the loudest but don't make yourself look ignorant by saying the Tea Party is causing these issues. These issues have been around far longer than the Tea Party. That is just disingenuous. Originally Posted by Boltfan

Boltfan, I think you're an intelligent guy too, and better than me at understanding the context of this place and posting accordingly... but... I love good discussion, no matter where it happens and who it's with. I've had some awesome debates sitting in VIP at CR with long time friends while being simultaneously entertained.

I hold George Bush accountable for the majority of our current fiscal challenges because the majority of our budget deficit was a lateral pass from his regime to the current one. As President and Commander-In-Chief, Bush could have decided all by himself not to enter into two separate wars, one questionable and one with a corrupt agenda. He could have used his veto to stop unfunded tax cuts for the most wealthy 1% of our population. He might not have had the individual power to end subsidies for big oil, but I doubt he wanted to. Those were the forces that got him elected (as their puppet).

I similarly hold Obama responsible for failing to effectively address the problems he was handed. He should have made more progress by now. He squandered opportunity to fix things during the first two years of his term because he wanted to please everyone. That isn’t leadership. No balls.

It’s true that Bush had to deal with Pelosi and her gang of fools, just as Obama has to deal with Boner and his collection of imbeciles. But at the end of the day, the man at the top is the flagship member of his party and is accountable to deliver.

I openly admit that I have a bias against the little Bush because he proved to be a such bumbling idiot puppet, but I’m developing a more bi-partisan stance because Obama is proving to be a good talker without the needed gravitas to make things happen. My disdain is becoming more balanced.

I don’t blame the Tea Party for anything except undue influence on the Republican Party (not really their fault) and a serious lack of understanding of global economics. They are an embarrassment for America on the global stage. I’m disappointed that the Tea Party represents a cross-section of the American populace because I think it means that a good chunk of Americans don’t understand the basic principles of their own economy, yet they feel they know what the right answer is. Listening to the Tea Party is like asking passengers on a plane if any of them wants to land it.

Give me another Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar with a clear understanding of the value of a good BBBJ, and who left office with a budget surplus. Someone who could work across party lines, even when Newt was on the other side. Clinton wasn’t afraid to use the military but he understood the difference between ‘strategic engagement’ and ‘war’.

If one were to begin compiling an "outrage of the day" list of actions relating to this topic, here's a good candidate for an initial entry:

http://www.businessinsider.com/gover...to-lend-2011-8

That's an important component of the collection of reasons that savers are being punished while many banks are acting in a restrained manner (to say the least) about lending.

Of course, why engage in typical lending practices when you can play the carry trade to a fat payday? Two more years of guaranteed ZIRP is an incredibly large continuing bailout.

(And the bonus pool is as big as ever.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Yes, that is pretty outrageous.

L4L,

Great discussion. Such a refreshing change from the national sandbox.

I still believe that our 3 branches of the government must operate as designed for this thing to work. The Presidents are certainly part of the problem, but Both Clinton AND Congress had to work together in the 90's. It may be more simple to pile on one person but I believe all branches must work to solve the issues. While we may be at odds over the wars and tax cuts those two things alone did not put us in the mess we are now. in 2005 Bush attempted SS reform. Regardless of how you feel about his plan did congress submit an alternative that Bush vetoed?

There is just simply no attempt on any branch to fix things right now. Submit a bill to Obama to cut the budget. Force his hand to veto the bill. These threats of a veto are chicken shit. Make him make decisions.

Agreed.

The problems we're dealing with are still primarily the results of the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush regime. Most of the deficit was passed on, driven by unnecessary wars, unfunded tax cuts for special interests, etc., etc. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Find me the data (www.omb.gov) that shows war spending was pushed into the $3T (or more) that Obama has spend while being in office.

Find me the data (www.irs.gov or www.omb.gov) that lets YOU justify saying that tax cuts have led to over $3T in excess borrowing in the past 2.5 yrs.

The "facts" argue your point. I don't need to say much else.

I'm still confused how any thinking person can argue that taking a dollar from Person A, paying a government flunky to get that into the hands of Person B, can yield more economic growth than allowing Person A to spend his own fucking dollar? Originally Posted by LazurusLong

Easy. Because Person A will sit on his money and not spend it. Right now, that is exactly what is happening in the economy. People are fleeing to safe "investments," none or which provide capital that is being spent. Let's say that my savings rate of the wealthy is 30%. If you give me a dollar, I'll sit on $0.30 of that dollar, buying a mutual fund that consists of Euro corporate bonds, let's say. If, however, the government taxes that dollar (assume the whole dollar for simplicity), and spends it, all of it is put to use stimulating the economy. Indeed, despite Capt. Midnight's obtuseness, some of it will be respent.

And Captian Midnight, all I can say is that I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

As for those of you who decry spending and wail about the least little increase in taxes, how do you explain that Federal taxes in the U.S. are at the lowest point in over 60 years?



Likewise, the tax rates in the U.S. are ten percentage points below comparable countries around the world.



And as a percent of GDP, our government spending is lower than comparable countries:





Overall, the picture is one of modest spending, and ridiculously low tax rates. Not high tax rates and high spending, as all to many here would lead you to believe.

As for those of you who decry spending and wail about the least little increase in taxes, how do you explain that Federal taxes in the U.S. are at the lowest point in over 60 years?

Overall, the picture is one of modest spending, and ridiculously low tax rates. Not high tax rates and high spending, as all to many here would lead you to believe. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The USA had *led* the World, not followed.

Since you believe taxes should be higher and The Government should spend more....well, lay out your plan. Let's see just how much of a wacked out Socialist you really are.

...despite Capt. Midnight's obtuseness... Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The only obtuseness I see in this thread is contained in your posts.

And Captian Midnight, all I can say is that I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

That's a statement that should have been directed at you.

Tush Hog, just a suggestion, if I may: If you're going to continually hector others and toss snide little barbs, I recommend that you try to learn how to craft a cogent argument supporting your views. You haven't explained anything at all in any reasoned and coherent fashion, but I suppose that should not come as a surprise. After all, you obviously have little understanding of this issue.

On the other hand, I have explained a number of points in some detail. Note particularly the ECB's robustness anaysis I mentioned earlier, indicating "multipliers" of about 0.5 for most types of spending. There's not a scintilla of evidence that multipliers in the real world approach 0.1, let alone exceed it. Just look at what's been happening in most of Europe's social democracies, where governmnents have continually and rapidly increased spending for many years. How's that working?

Supporters of tooth-fairy economics seem to believe that there's some sort of giant government money tree and that there won't be consequences for the reckless spending binges we've been on for years. Massive government spending, borrowing, and money printing is a bridge to the next crisis, not to a more prosperous future. The American middle class is once again going to pay a very painful price for all this economic malpractice.

Our economy suffers from a number of serious structural problems, just a few of which I touched upon back in post #56. Simply pouring out more money in an attempt to boost consumption without fixing anything isn't going to help a whole lot.

Since you believe taxes should be higher and The Government should spend more....well, lay out your plan. Let's see just how much of a wacked out Socialist you really are. Originally Posted by TallGuy6

Apparently he believes that we should travel a long way on the path toward becoming more like a European-style social democracy, with much higher levels of spending on things such as lavish pensions, unemployment insurance, free university education for all, free health care, etc.

If that's what one believes, fine. But then he must also advocate for the type of tax system required to pay the bills.

What a lot of people don't realize is that although we are taxed at very low rates compared with most Europeans, our tax system is much more progressive than those across the Atlantic. Yes, people at the top of the income strata pay a higher percentage of their income in a country like France, Germany, or Britain. But the non-affluent European pays a far higher percentage of his income to the tax collector than his American counterpart.

I don't think you'll see any of today's politicians unveil the type of tax system we'll need to even pay for our current levels of spending, let alone those we'll see if people like TexTushHog were to get their way.

The American middle class would explode with rage.

Find me the data (www.omb.gov) that shows war spending was pushed into the $3T (or more) that Obama has spend while being in office.

Find me the data (www.irs.gov or www.omb.gov) that lets YOU justify saying that tax cuts have led to over $3T in excess borrowing in the past 2.5 yrs.

The "facts" argue your point. I don't need to say much else. Originally Posted by TallGuy6

No, I'm not going to invest time on a closed mind. If you tell me that you'll change your position if I show you that the majority of the deficit was a hand-off from Bush, I'll give you the numbers. But you won't.

The amount of deficit that Barak Obama is responsible for is a simple formula: Current Deficit - Bush Deficit. As long as that is not a negative number, I hang most of the problem on Little Bush. My issues with both Bush and Obama are already posted so I won't repeat them here.

Note that I also don't include funds for TARP in BO's numbers. TARP was a non-optional expense when BO took over. A good deal of tarp has also been profitable, thanks in part to the way some of it was implemented (ownership instead of bailout). I wish the government had taken ownership stakes and board seats in the banks. That would have provided a lot of entertainment.

The USA had *led* the World, not followed.

Since you believe taxes should be higher and The Government should spend more....well, lay out your plan. Let's see just how much of a wacked out Socialist you really are. Originally Posted by TallGuy6

What you (and most of the Republican base) fail to understand is that YOUR standard of living is most at risk with the current policies. The middle class is eroding and we're on the path towards a much more binary have and have-not society, which is another way of saying that we're on the path from a 1st-world to a 2nd-world economy. We're on a path to become a lot more like our Mexican neighbors. Has anyone noticed that our dollar is worth less than the Canadian Dollar now, which was worth 67 cents US about 5 years ago?