US politics circa 2011

I get back from lounging around Europe for three weeks spending a bit of my entirely unjustified Bush tax cut from the last year (that was supposed to lead to me creating "more jobs" in my business, somehow, the lying sacks of shit Republicans) and it's like I never even left. It's the very same argument that was going on the day I left!!!

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I'm somewhat reluctant to criticize, because I appreciate the stands you've taken on civil liberties and the legal advice you've kindly given to many here. But let's call a spade a spade. The reason you favor the Democratic party is because it's in your best interest economically if Democrats win.

My tax cuts will go towards investment and savings and will generate jobs (maybe just one or two), and will contribute, in a tiny way, to reducing the current account deficit. I don't spend my disposable income lounging around Europe generating jobs for Europeans. The way I invest and spend my money has a more favorable effect on the economy than the government has when it takes it from me and spends it.

My tax cuts will go towards investment and savings and will generate jobs (maybe just one or two), and will contribute, in a tiny way, to reducing the current account deficit. . Originally Posted by Tiny

If that is so....then why oh why did the deficit expand after the first tax break Bush II gave? You forget to hire two people?

If that is so....then why oh why did the deficit expand after the first tax break Bush II gave? You forget to hire two people? Originally Posted by WTF

Because the politicians, Republican and Democrat, spent too much of our money, and our children's money, and our children's children's money.

Are you telling me my money is better spent to help wage war in Iraq, rather than hiring two employees?

I didn't vote for Bush in either election.

They continued with a tax cut Originally Posted by WTF

Technically no. They didn't cut taxes, they didn't let taxes increase.

Of course, it would have been much smarter to raise taxes and kill what little recovery there is.

BTW, that deficit commission recommended lower tax rates but with a broader tax base.

If that is so....then why oh why did the deficit expand after the first tax break Bush II gave? You forget to hire two people? Originally Posted by WTF

Maybe because there was a recession?

Maybe because there was a recession? Originally Posted by pjorourke

There was a recession after a Fed fueled bubble....so the tax breaks did not fuel growth? They did not pay for themselves? How can that be? I thought tax cuts fueled booms!

Technically no. They didn't cut taxes, they didn't let taxes increase.

. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I said they continues with a tax cut...were the Bush tax cuts not a tax cut? If they were and you continue them what part did I get wrong?

Of course, it would have been much smarter to raise taxes and kill what little recovery there is.

. Originally Posted by pjorourke

They would have been much smarter to let them expire on people making over one million a year and not extend the unemployment benifits. Of course that is easy for me to say, I do not make over a mil and I am not unemployed.

BTW, that deficit commission recommended lower tax rates but with a broader tax base. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Whadda they wanna do, increase the SS limit and the retirement age?

If that is so....then why oh why did the deficit expand after the first tax break Bush II gave? Originally Posted by WTF

Just a hunch, but it could be that Bush and Republican congresses increased spending by about 50% (in nominal dollars) between 2001 and 2007.

(And people said these guys were conservatives!?)

CM: Are what you saying is that the only fiscally responsible Presidents in the last 35 years were Carter and Clinton?

Just a hunch, but it could be that Bush and Republican congresses increased spending by about 50% (in nominal dollars) between 2001 and 2007.

(And people said these guys were conservatives!?) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Let me get this straight, Bush cut taxes and increased spending and the deficit went up!

Damn, I'm not a smart man but that does not sound to smart to me. How come we elected him twice?

Let me get this straight, Bush cut taxes and increased spending and the deficit went up!

Damn, I'm not a smart man but that does not sound to smart to me. How come we elected him twice? Originally Posted by WTF

Al Gore, John Kerry....

I'm somewhat reluctant to criticize, because I appreciate the stands you've taken on civil liberties and the legal advice you've kindly given to many here. But let's call a spade a spade. The reason you favor the Democratic party is because it's in your best interest economically if Democrats win.

My tax cuts will go towards investment and savings and will generate jobs (maybe just one or two), and will contribute, in a tiny way, to reducing the current account deficit. I don't spend my disposable income lounging around Europe generating jobs for Europeans. The way I invest and spend my money has a more favorable effect on the economy than the government has when it takes it from me and spends it. Originally Posted by Tiny

Welcome Tiny. Don't be reluctant to criticize fools. Other than pussy, that is our favorite pastime here.

FWIW, though, I don't criticize how another man spends HIS money. I'm only critical of someone spending MY money. The so called tax cuts weren't a gift from government, but simply letting TTH keep some of HIS money.

CM: Are what you saying is that the only fiscally responsible Presidents in the last 35 years were Carter and Clinton? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Carter was not as fiscally irresponsible as some. In my view, his biggest mistake was appointing the disastrous Bill Miller to replace the almost equally disastrous Arthur Burns at the Fed. (The following year, he rectified this grievous blunder by putting Volcker in the Fed chair with an eventual mandate to break the back of inflation and restore sound money. It just didn't happen soon enough to save his presidency.) Thus I believe his biggest failing was to get the right people, at an early date anyway, to oversee monetary (not fiscal) policy. He was also the victim of a disastrous congress that in my view was much more liberal than he was.

Bill Clinton actually turned out to be a very fiscally responsible president. Sure, he caught a break when a lot of clueless liberals were tossed out in the '94 housecleaning, but he and his advisors recognized the importance of fiscal discipline. Government spending advanced at a less rapid rate on his watch than at any other time in modern history. In fact, it fell substantially as a percentage of GDP.

It's therefore no accident that the late 1990s was a time of prosperity. Of course, people will point to the tech boom of the '90s and say that Bill caught a bit of a lucky break, but he was a guy who believed in fiscal discipline and sound money.

One key point: Notice where gold, energy, and most commodities were trading in the late '90s?

The results speak for themselves.

Carter was not as fiscally irresponsible as some. . Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I thought that fella was a Commie or maybe a comedian not sure, I do know PJ calls him a joke ever chance he gits!

I said Carter was the worst ex-President ever. The asshole doesn't know how to sit down and shut up.

I think CM summed up carter pretty well from a fiscal pov. Of course his biggest failings were foreign policy and the fact that he acted like a winy bitch.

I said they continues with a tax cut...were the Bush tax cuts not a tax cut? If they were and you continue them what part did I get wrong? Originally Posted by WTF

Well at some point previous the taxes were incrased to the rate that they were cut from. So, if you're going to follow you line of thinking (that bouncing ball as distorted as it is) then you need to refer to the tax as a tax increase/cut. And maybe since it has increased sveral times...and been cut several times...and been partially cut several times...and partially increased several times...well f*ck, I don't know what to call it.

Someimes you fight so hard to make some point that is an idiotic point in the first place, I wonder whether you have fallen over into the deep end.

I'm somewhat reluctant to criticize, because I appreciate the stands you've taken on civil liberties and the legal advice you've kindly given to many here. But let's call a spade a spade. The reason you favor the Democratic party is because it's in your best interest economically if Democrats win.

My tax cuts will go towards investment and savings and will generate jobs (maybe just one or two), and will contribute, in a tiny way, to reducing the current account deficit. I don't spend my disposable income lounging around Europe generating jobs for Europeans. The way I invest and spend my money has a more favorable effect on the economy than the government has when it takes it from me and spends it. Originally Posted by Tiny

Ironically, I suspect I'm actually better off with Republicans in office. I'm going to save a shit load on inheritance tax. The Republicans would eliminate my personal injury practice, but I've had offers to make just as much, if not more, doing corporate litigation. The Republicans will never get rid of their corporate master's access to our courts. So I can make just as much working for a big firm. What I would loose would be my freedom and a lot of my leisure time. Under Republicans my taxes are lowered about $20k - $50k a year. So I actually think that my convictions toward the Democratic Party cost me money, especially considering I donate to them and wouldn't give a dime to the fucking Republicans.

As for jobs, I hire when I need more employees. I has nothing to do with the economy or my tax rate. We sign up some big corporate case (and I do some corporate litigation), I add a file clerk just to handle that one case. I don't have that case, I don't hire another hand. I have more legal issues than usual, I hire another lawyer. I don't call my accountant and ask, what's the tax law this week. And frankly, that's a pretty good model for the larger economy. Tax policy doesn't drive hiring, aggregate demand does.

If you have the business for more employees, hire them regardless of what the tax law is. If you don't have the business, you wouldn't hire them even if your marginal tax rate was 0%.