Here's a little ditty that I saved from April.
The Architect Of Reaganomics Calls For The Bush Tax Cuts To End
Greenspan said, “I think this crisis is so imminent and so difficult that I think we have to allow the so-called Bush tax cuts all to expire. That is a very big number. But having put the rates back to where they were in the Clinton administration, I would argue that everything else should be either cutting spending or taking out the subsidies which are in the tax expenditures.”
Wow. There have been a lot of folks from the Reagan era (Bartlett, Stockman) that have all been c coming out against the policies that they used to support. I think that represents some serious reflection and critical thinking at a time when our country needs it.
However, he's one of the morons that got us into this mess and now he's suddenly "seen the light?" Yeah, maybe listening to him might not be a good idea either. There's no fucking way I'd support repealing ALL of the Bush tax cuts. All of them? Really? No way.
More and more every day I am convinced we need some constructivist thinking. I hear "we have a spending problem" and that makes me throw up. We can't repeal the Bush tax cuts for everyone in this sluggish economy. Returning the rates to the Clinton levels on the upper folks is a start but it's clear it won't be enough.
We need to think out of the box and be as non partisan as we possibly can on this one and that means everyone. Any ideas?
48 comments:
I do.
Plant a garden.
Get a gun.
Interact with your neighbors.
All of these things will be a lot more useful than claiming your democrats are smarter than their republicans. (Or vice versa) Or watching dancing with the stars.
If the "crisis is so imminent", then is there really time for tax policy to change the ending?
theeconomiccollapseblog.com
I'm all for shared sacrifice, if it's really shared.
The real problem with the Bush tax cuts is that the capital gains tax rate -- the rate at which the wealthy are taxed at -- is 15%, or one half or less than the rate that regular people pay. If we have to accept a return to Clinton era tax rates for everyone in order to eliminate that outrageous inequity, I'd go along with it. That is, if the the tax rates were indexed for inflation -- because regular guys have suffered a net income loss since then, as corporations have shipped more and more jobs overseas.
It's not about getting back at the rich, it's about doing what's right for the country. And the deficit will not go away by slashing spending (especially if you're also cutting taxes even more, like Pawlenty wants to do). There are too many non-discretionary expenditures to make that anywhere near possible, unless you gut the sacred cow of defense spending, which Republicans are loathe to do.
If you look at the countries where everyone has a gun and uses it -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia -- you'll see they don't really provide you all that much security. Someone always has a bigger gun, and the bad guys have no compunctions about shooting you in the back, sending a mortar through your front door or burning your house down in the middle of the night. Guns absolutely everywhere will just wind up with another several thousand people dead each year from idiots who don't know how to handle their weapons, their tempers, or their fears.
Nikto, in every one of those countries you name, they were violent societies and all-around hellholes long before there were guns. They'd knife you, shoot you with a bow, hack you with a sword, spit you with a lance. When will it get through to you that it's the culture, not the guns?
The real problem with the Bush tax cuts is that the capital gains tax rate -- the rate at which the wealthy are taxed at -- is 15%, or one half or less than the rate that regular people pay.
Uh, I pay capital gains at the same rate as Warren Buffet - sadly not in the same amounts.
But what I really want to hear is how I can report income as capital gains to take advantage of the lower rate. M - you claim that rich people can do this, please share the secret.
The real problem with the Bush tax cuts is that the capital gains tax rate -- the rate at which the wealthy are taxed at -- is 15%, or one half or less than the rate that regular people pay.
The real problem is economic IGNORANCE shown in this statement and hawked all over this blog. Do you know what capital is for? Capital is what creates jobs. Capital is investment. Why in the blazes would you stifle investment?! The wealthy do not get there by working for others, they create value. They put capital to work creating products and services and employing others if their ideas are successful or investing in companies that have potential to do so.
Google is a great example. Guys have an idea and get CAPITAL from others to build their idea. What did it generate? A massive wealth generation machine for thousands. Now, how many of those "wealthy" investors tried with other companies and lost money in a flameout? With risk, reward is supposed to follow. Yet you complain that not only are they supposed to risk their money, they have to get taxed much higher for taking those risks?! Nice disincentive plan your proposing - [Borat] not [/Borat].
Now, as to M's spending vs tax debate, this Super-Economy Site has some enlightening detail.
The key points:
The overwhelming majority of Presidents Obama's budgeted deficit would remain even if he collected Clinton-era record revenue. By the end of his term, when the recession is projected to be long over, 80% of the deficit caused by President Obama spending plan would remain even if we assume Clinton-era record revenue.
Clinton-era record revenue would be nowhere near enough to fund Obama-era record spending.
Because of ever expanding government, the deficit would explode even when assuming record levels of revenue, with the debt growing to several hundred percent of GDP.
If liberals want to argue that government spending is too low, and that we should increase it for reasons of social policy and raise taxes to pay for it, they should feel free to do so. But please do not claim that the long term deficit is primarily caused by taxes being too low relative to historical levels, because that is simply not true.
It is irresponsible deficit spending and stupid lefty policies that continue to cause problems. The right has its own culpability in the irresponsible spending and policies but now it is being ramped up beyond irresponsible to reckless!
There's no fucking way I'd support repealing ALL of the Bush tax cuts. All of them? Really? No way.
I see. So this isn't such a problem that we need everyone to sacrifice - just those who make more than you, is that about the size of it?
Anyhoo, I'm probably on the verge of being a broken record, but Mead has another gem up. Please go read it - so you can understand what a liberal that CAN think is like.
Thanks JI.
But let's go one step beyond Mead's scenario.
Sixty-five years of government expansion cannot be turned around quickly. In fact, an attempt to turn it around quickly is essentially the same as stopping it abruptly.
Forty-something percent of the USA receives government handouts. What will those people do on the day the handouts stop?
So how many years will it take to whittle down the 40%?
Do you think we have that many years left at our current pace?
When foodstamps stop coming in the mail, people are still going to want food. And if they have no food - but still have forks and knives - they are going to cut something.
Perhaps this post can be used to talk about something more important than Palin's emails, or Bill Maher's latest TV show.
Oh, and Nikto, there are roughly 300 million Americans. Strangely, there are also ~300 million firearms in the US.
And prophetically, there are around 10,000 firearm murders in the US each year.
Somebody help my math here, but what does that work out to?
A .0000033 % chance of being murdered by a gun toting criminal?
Is there a statistician in the house?!?
Capital is what creates jobs.
Alright. It's a matter of fact that the wealthy are richer than they have ever been. Private concerns are flush with cash. So where are the jobs? And please define "stupid lefty policies." That one must be under "Critical Thinking," eh?
So where are the jobs?
Businesses aren't investing, in equipment or people (especially people) because they don't have confidence that the govt isn't going to change the rules again. I know you must not get that, but someone who actually puts their money at risk wants to feel some degree of confidence that 3/4s of the way through the game the ref isn't going to invent some new rules (or move the goalposts).
Of course it is all about the wicked wealthy in M's world.
...someone who actually puts their money at risk wants to feel some degree of confidence that 3/4s of the way through the game the ref isn't going to invent some new rules (or move the goalposts).
This is an easily predictable, and in fact widely predicted, consequence of executive decisions that skirted or flatly ignored existing law, like the auto bailouts and the BP nonsense. I won't say Obama bears all the responsibility for it, but those 2 decisions distinctly added to the "will they change the rules again?" uncertainty rather than subtracting from it, much to the surprise of no one.
I'm all for shared sacrifice, if it's really shared.
So let me get this straight... you're saying you're in favor of sacrifice for the greater good, but only on condition that similar (as perceived by you) sacrifice is compelled from others. That's the price of your voluntary support.
The concept of giving voluntarily of yourself because something is important to you personally, regardless of the importance anyone else assigns to it... that's as alien to you as the back side of the moon, huh?
Stupid lefty policies are defined by anything liberals democrats propose. Here is one example of many:
“President Obama has been talking for two and a half years about creating jobs, particularly family-wage manufacturing jobs. Really a president does not create manufacturing jobs. He creates policies that may encourage companies to create jobs — companies like Boeing, which has now had the creation of 1,000 jobs in South Carolina second-guessed by Obama’s National Labor Relations Board … In its complaint, the NLRB is attempting to reverse a U.S. investment by the nation’s No. 1 exporter 17 months after the company decided to make it — after the money has been spent, after the equipment is set up and after 1,000 workers have been hired.” (Editorial, “NLRB complaint against Boeing needs critical look,” Seattle Times, 06/14/11)
Business has taken note of bullshit like this and have slowed investment considerably. Obama's administration is viciously anti business and now the economy pays the penalty. We shouldn't be surprised when we elected a president who has only worked in a govt bubble.
"It's a matter of fact that the wealthy are richer than they have ever been."
Completely wrong.
You have been alive for less than a century.
The NORMAL state of human affairs has been the concentration of wealth in the hands of the upper class. Pharoah, Noble, Aristocrat, Plantation owner...
Regression to the mean.
The idea of starting from scratch with 'all men created equal' was a great idea. Unfortunately, such dreams of rainbows and unicorns got lost once it was discovered how to game the system, and vote to give myself someone else's money.
Today's nobles sit in DC.
Today's pharaoh's have offices on Wall St.
Time to start from scratch again...
It'll happen if you agree, and it'll happen if you don't.
Can you believe the last time half of the US tried to kill the other half was just 140 years ago?
In a general way, I'm inclined to agree with the above comment. When I say wealthier than they have ever been, I'm talking fairly basically. The dollar amounts that these people are raking in is staggering when you compare them to historical highs. Although I suppose the pharaohs may have had more.
6Kings and juris, why is the problem ALWAYS the government with you two? If you look at it logically, it makes no sense. You are asking for less regulation and the government to get out of the way, right? Well, the government did that with derivatives, CDOs and credit default swaps. From a purely factual point of view, how exactly did that work out? What happened?
And, again, your whole supposition completely fails. You call for less tax which will spur revenue. We have had that for ten years and it's made things worse. You say "capital is what creates jobs." Well, they have a ton of capital and we have less jobs. Why? Because they can make money without hiring. Do either of you honestly think that if we give them more free reign that things will change and they will hire more?
The problem is that they are wealthy NOW and don't want things to change. Sadly, they have convinced you that the commies are coming when really it's that they want to keep their power. And it's not just power...it's double super power. Even if Obama's tax policies were fully implemented they'd still have super power. They'd still be very wealthy and that's what makes their protestations so fucking absurd when you think about it. They are like children who can't simply be happy with having 10 more GI Joes with the Kung Fu grip. They have to have 100 more.
they don't have confidence that the govt isn't going to change the rules again.
Excuse me, but aren't these the same businesses that were squirting shit in their pants and begging the government to bail them out? We saved their asses and sadly had to because they more or less had the world's economic system by the balls. What a bunch of ungrateful assholes.
Business has taken note of bullshit like this and have slowed investment considerably.
Again, huh? They caused this problem, not the government. It's one long denial and redirect of responsibility. They behaved like greedy little pig children and it's still the government's fault. You guys wonder why I harp on the worship of the Christ like glow of business. I'm surprised either one of you can talk with the corporate cock in your mouth.
Of course, this is the problem when you live in country where wealthy people are magical and someday we could all be just like them, right? So we have to fight off the big, bad government that never works right and protect the poor, persecuted private sector from its evil. What a fucking fairy tale.
No Mark. These are NOT
"the same businesses that were... begging the government to bail them out"
The Uber-corps get bailed out due to the influence of political pull. Those without 'pull' went the way of Lehman Brothers.
Every other business is left wondering when they will be favored, or eliminated.
The obvious answer is that they will be eliminated. Favored or not.
The rule of law is over. Almost.
"why is the problem ALWAYS the government "
That is a question you should really reflect on.
Perhaps because people will gladly trade freedom for security.
Am I free to drive 150 mph down main street, even if I am completely capable of doing so safely?
Am I free to carry a gun, even if it has no bullets?
Am I free to let my lawn turn brown and die?
Am I free to think bad things?
Oh wait... that last one hasn't happened yet.
Or has it?
I'll ignore your last post Mark. It's beneath an honest attempt to learn something.
Re-read it tomorrow and think about it. I'll still be here.
Can anyone here IMAGINE why the US would have to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, rather than just pass a law / executive order against it?
That was only 80 years ago kids.
Hard to imagine isn't it?
Thank goodness we have enough government now to provide for our security...
Yeah, the ENTIRE private sector asked for and got a bailout.
Only a few companies got a bailout, but let's keep defining the private sector by wall street firms, insurance companies, and really big banks.
yawn
They caused this problem, not the government. It's one long denial and redirect of responsibility. They behaved like greedy little pig children and it's still the government's fault. You guys wonder why I harp on the worship of the Christ like glow of business. I'm surprised either one of you can talk with the corporate cock in your mouth.
This is you thinking critically, is it? This is you setting the example for "We need to think out of the box and be as non partisan as we possibly can on this one and that means everyone." Right?
Crazy-The Lehman failure was a mistake. I'd check out "Too Big to Fail" by Andrew Sorkin for more on this. In fact, letting Lehman fail had a cascade effect that almost brought down the world economy.
This is you thinking critically, is it?
We won't be able to get anywhere until 30 percent of this country ceases to worship the Christ like glow of the private sector. There isn't any critical thinking involved in an ideology that blames only the government for our woes and is one giant apology bag for private industry.
Lehman:
Perhaps it was and perhaps it wasn't a mistake. But ask yourself WHY they were allowed to fail, and other financial companies in similar circumstance were NOT allowed to fail.
Political pull.
Not rule of law. Political pull.
"worship the Christ like glow of the private sector"
I thought you wanted to get out of your box.
No, he wants you out of the box he imagines you're in, so that you can climb into his box and join him in eating the evil rich together.
6Kings and juris, why is the problem ALWAYS the government with you two?
Why is it NEVER the fault of government with you? How does such a self reflective person miss that about himself? Not to mention the sweeping generalization - it sure is fun arguing with stereotypes instead of real people, isn't it M?
From a purely factual point of view, how exactly did that work out?
Not well. Of course you still believe that that caused the housing collapse - not that the bubble burst and triggered the financial meltdown. Or how that bubble was formed and inflated. So given you don't have a factual understanding, I won't put much value on your opinion.
Excuse me, but aren't these the same businesses that were squirting shit in their pants and begging the government to bail them out?
No, as a matter of fact they aren't. There are a whole bunch of businesses that are not crony capitalists, and frankly I'd like to see all of those businesses drive the crony cock-suckers right out of the market. Of course you and your party squirt shit at the thought of that. cough - GM - cough
We saved their asses and sadly had to because they more or less had the world's economic system by the balls.
And because you actually believe that, you can count on them doing it again. You don't like them being ungrateful assholes - don't bail them out. The world will survive. Funny but I hadn't pegged you as an "end-of-the-world" idiot, but that may be another thing I got wrong.
It's one long denial and redirect of responsibility.
Indeed. You take a few big, bad players and blame all of their sins on thousands of businesses that didn't do a damn thing wrong. You get mighty indignant when the misdeeds of some teacher are used to tar the reputation of the entire profession - yet you so freely slander other people (often out of your own pure ignorance). Small wonder that people take offense - you sure as hell do.
I'm surprised either one of you can talk with the corporate cock in your mouth.
You see? See how offended you are that we don't worship govt - and since we must worship something you assume it must be large, corrupt corporations. That is the problem with simple-minded religious zealots - always trying to project their own sins onto others to salve their troubled souls.
We won't be able to get anywhere until 30 percent of this country ceases to worship the Christ like glow of the private sector.
Since you have accused me of both sucking corporate cock and worshipping corporations, I will await your retraction of both falsehoods. I won't of course hold my breath.
Larry, Bill Whittle is part of the problem, not the solution. He does do his part for charity, though...charity for guys like the Kochs. Bringing Bircherism to your hometown!
Juris, the housing market went unregulated because everyone was making too much money. They vainly assumed that nothing could go wrong. I'll grant you that the government failed at doing its job. They should be blamed for that. But the problem originated in California (your home state) and the sub prime boom in private firms.
That's a small box.
But it must be comfortable.
the housing market went unregulated because everyone was making too much money
But why were they making that money? Why did housing values increase so much more rapidly than historical norms? What was the base cause of the tulip...err housing bubble?
Supply and demand?
Demand? Increased immigration? Increased sales to unqualified buyers (Fannie and Freddy)? Increased speculation (flipping) fueled by previous increased demand? Increased lending fueled by previous increased demand and backed by the security of government guaranteed loans?
Supply? Regulation and red tape delaying the building of new homes? Regulation of growth boundaries limiting home building?
Yup, deregulation. All we need is more government to fix things.
Juris, the housing market went unregulated because everyone was making too much money.
And physicists insist that black holes are the densest thing in the known universe. Silly scientists.
Oh, you just had to call them BLACK holes!
Racist!
Uh oh.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/166789-criticizing-obama-kucinich-credits-bush-for-asking-congress-to-go-war
When you've lost Dennis Kucinich, you've lost Middle America.
M bleeted: "Larry, Bill Whittle is part of the problem, not the solution. He does do his part for charity, though...charity for guys like the Kochs. Bringing Bircherism to your hometown!"
Where the fuck did that comment come from? That's as relevant to anything I said as bringing up the carrying capacity of a swallow.
That's M "thinking out of the box and being as non partisan as he possibly can".
An African swallow or a European swallow?
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Larry, isn't the eating the rich motif a Whittle video that was posted on here a while back.
I don't recall seeing it, and that "motif" sure as shit pre-dates Bill Whittle by a few decades. Sounds like both Mark and you are stuck in your little ticky-tacky boxes.
little ticky-tacky boxes
The mental equivalent of a Roach motel?
There went the Coke out my nose, I'll have you know. It was worth it, though, for the image. :)
That "motif" also completely destroyed the argument about taxes (or complete confiscation) being able to address this spending issue the government has that M continues to minimize. I asked you to debunk any part of that and ... <>
Apparently, didn't fit the narrative so it was disregarded as right wing ideology or some other nonsense.
"completely destroyed the argument"
Gee, I can't figure out for the life of me why I say that all you guys want is to win the argument.
As I have said all along, our problem is 1/3 taxes and 2/3s spending. Somehow you guys not listening has become my "nonsense."
Whittle's entire argument makes no sense. Neither does any anti tax person's silliness. Take the last few months, for example. We extended the Bush tax cuts and I have been assured repeatedly that once that happens, the economy is going to take off. It hasn't.
But somehow it must all be Obama's fault, right? We've had tax cuts for 10 years now and the results speak for themselves.
That's because besides making the statement that it's 2/3 spending, all you do is harp incessantly about taxes.
If spending is the larger share of the problem, perhaps you could devote more than lip service to it.
Perhaps you could also recognize the concern that our elected representatives have a habit of spending every dollar we give them faster than a sailor on leave, and thus it may actually be a legitimate requirement to limit spending prior to giving the spendthrifts another red cent.
I'm not going to devote more time to it because rational people know that we have to make cuts. What else is there to say? The problem is the irrational people who think we can continue to cut taxes and then magic will occur. What is that magic exactly?
The problem is the irrational people who think we can continue to cut taxes and then magic will occur.
Back to the voices in your head eh?
The problem is the irrational people who think we can continue to...
give politicians a blank check
...then magic...spending cuts...will occur. What is that magic exactly?
{run command threadkill]
[subroutine = *secondlevelthought]
Hey, Unix Jedi, why don't you just start posting under your real name and stop using anonymous or the fake ones. We all know it's you, numb nuts.
Post a Comment