love this

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

" disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. "

OK, so I assume you mean that you think we need taxes on the wealthy.

Zimmy, PLEASE share numbers with me that support the notion that taxes on the wealthy will even put a small dent in our fiscal mess.

You're in a tough spot here, Zimmy. Because I think long, hard, and rationally before I form my opinions. And in this case, my opinion is based on hard, irrefutable facts. All liberals have is ideology.

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

Z- good response, but here is the kicker. Politics aside, we know for a fact the O administration gave millions to these green energy cos that went defunct. That was millions of OUR money. Why would I want to give MORE? We could have saved millions by the govt doing nothing, right? I dont see one example of govt spending doing any good. I see plenty examples of my spending do others good. I do agree that taxes should be changed. I dont agree with the rate increase constantly being proposed. I think we should change the capital gains tax and close loopholes and remove the AMT. There are gives and takes in there that will benefit the economy as a whole.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Z- good response, but here is the kicker. Politics aside, we know for a fact the O administration gave millions to these green energy cos that went defunct. That was millions of OUR money. Why would I want to give MORE? We could have saved millions by the govt doing nothing, right? I dont see one example of govt spending doing any good. I see plenty examples of my spending do others good. I do agree that taxes should be changed. I dont agree with the rate increase constantly being proposed. I think we should change the capital gains tax and close loopholes and remove the AMT. There are gives and takes in there that will benefit the economy as a whole.

I don't think we are far apart either on this. The solar issues is ridiculous. Why the heck huge loans are given out that aren't backed by insurance is beyond me. The fdup thing is the writing was on the wall. On the other hand, how much money was lost in no-bid jobs to Haliburton over the previous administration. Both sides are bad at that crap.
The problem now is there is an overt policy that Republicans in congress will not do anything that helps Obama. That does no one any good.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I don't think we are far apart either on this. The solar issues is ridiculous. Why the heck huge loans are given out that aren't backed by insurance is beyond me. not too hard to figure out actually...

The fdup thing is the writing was on the wall. On the other hand, how much money was lost in no-bid jobs to Haliburton over the previous administration. Both sides are bad at that crap. FactCheck.org: Anti-Bush Ad Overstates Case Against Halliburton

The problem now is there is an overt policy that Republicans in congress will not do anything that helps Obama. That does no one any good.

why would Republicans help Obama?...the Democrats won't even help Obama....he wants to continue many disasterous policies that I'm sure you're "many, many" economists fully support

btw...House Passes Obama Jobs Bill Provision

October 27, 2011 12:57 P.M. By Andrew Stiles
The House overwhelmingly approved a measure to eliminate a much-maligned rule requiring government agencies to withhold 3 percent of payments to government contractors. This provision, which was included in President Obama’s $450 billion “jobs” bill, passed by a vote of 405 to 16.

Earlier this week, the White House announced its support of the House bill, as well as second measure to cover the cost of repealing the rule (about $11.2 billion over ten years) by tightening eligibility requirements for Medicare and other health benefit programs, which the House also passed today, 262 to 157. The idea was taken from the president’s most recent “deficit” package.

The House has now passed a total of 17 jobs bills that are still awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and Republicans are hoping to ramp up pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) to act.

the "cuts" to which you refer in most cases amount to little more than reductons in the rates of growth of government programs and that is viciously attacked by the dems...

the ONLY time that we can talk about cutting government is during a downturn like this and there shouldn't be an additional penny in increased spending until massive reductions in the size and scope of government occur and future spending is reigned in and current unfunded programs and promises are on solid footing...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

"Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money"

You're saying that as government spends money, unemployment goes down, as jobs get created. Then perhaps you could explain tp us why, despite Obama dumping hundreds of billions of government spending into the economy, unemployment is much higher than when he took office?Those same economists you support, said Obamaa's "stimulus" would keep unemployment below 8%.

Anyway, I reject your premise that "most economists" say that spending cuts are counterproductive in a recession. I can quote just as many economists who say the last thingf you want to do in a recession is raise taxes.

So Zimmy, since you are opposed to cuts, please tell us how we generate another $60 trillion or so before the baby boomers die off? Because we need at least that much.

"Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit"

Where on Earth do you get your facts? Our deficit this year will be about $1.5 trillion. Please post some numbers to show that tax hikes can generate anywhere near that number.

And Zimmy? You're saying that tax rate increases will lead to more tax revenue? So why, then, did tax revenue reach it's highest levels ever, AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS? Answer...tax cuts can be stimulative.

You spouted lots of theory, with no facts to back it up. In fact, your theory is directly contradicted by actual events of the last 5 years. But hey, don't let historical fact get in the way of a liberal rant.

[zimmy]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;896650
You spouted lots of theory, with no facts to back it up. In fact, your theory is directly contradicted by actual events of the last 5 years. But hey, don't let historical fact get in the way of a liberal rant.[/QUOTE]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Liberal rant

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I knew you wouldn't get it. Liberal rant

Sorry Zimmy, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I proved you wrong...

You claimed the economy needs govt spending to create jobs, and you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...Obama has dumped hundreds of billions into the economy, and unemployment increased. You offer no reply, because you cannot.

You also claimed that raising taxes on the wealthy would put a serious dent in our annual deficit, but you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...Our annual deficit ($1.5 trillion)is 15 times higher than what liberals claim tax hikes on the wealthy would rake in ($90 billion). You offer no reply, because you cannot.

You claim that tax cuts on the wealthy lower tax revenue collected, but you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...after the Bush tax cuts, tax revenues collected hit an all-time high. FACT...after the Bush tax cuts, the portion of taxes paid by the wealthy hit an all-time high, which lowers the burden on the rest of us. You offer no reply, because you cannot.

There's simply no talking to liberals. Even when you are mathematically proven wrong, you won't consider re-thinking your position. That's called "brainwashed".

The facts may not support your Marxist narrative Zimmy, but them there is still the facts.

If I'm wrong, show me some different facts. I am rational and persuadable.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sorry Zimmy, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I proved you wrong...



The facts may not support your Marxist narrative Zimmy, but them there is still the facts.

If I'm wrong, show me some different facts. I am rational and persuadable.

You are also very humble I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS. We need to reduce the borrowing first. I then followed with long term deficit reduction requires both tax increases and cuts. Just because you don't understand that, does not mean your statements are facts. I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. I am a big boy, you aren't going to make me feel sad or inferior with your name calling. Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995. Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. I think JohnR's thoughts on capital gains taxes are right on target. The most reasonable analysis of economics, in my opinion (I guess if they were your ideas, they would be facts), is that both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues. That is not an original idea of mine, but it makes sense based on mathematics. I will admit, you are right, just taxes can't do it. I have pointed that out each time I have posted. Maybe you missed that

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are also very humble I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. . Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995.

which one?

1981 = 69.25
1984= 50
1987= 38.5
1988= 29.75
1990= 32.45
1991= 34
1992= 35.8
1993= 36.9
1999= 39.6
2002= 38.6
2011= 35

and which set of tax rules do you want to apply to your new rate?

in 1999 the top 1% paid 36.18% and the top 10% paid 66.45% of all Federal personal income taxes
in 2009 the top 1% paid 36.73% and the top 10% paid 70.47% of all Federal personal income taxes ... source IRS

in a little state teetering on the edge of doom with a left of democrat governor and a democrat treasurer we cannot take even modest steps to address the spending because the people who actually run the state will not stand for it


RI unions say pension problem overstated
By David Klepper
Associated Press / October 27, 2011 PROVIDENCE, R.I.—Rhode Island labor unions that are fighting a proposed public pension overhaul accused state Treasurer Gina Raimondo on Thursday of overstating the problem to justify extreme changes.

Their remarks came during a third day of legislative hearings on a proposal by Raimondo and Gov. Lincoln Chafee and a day after hundreds of supporters and opponents of the legislation filled the Statehouse to weigh in on the bill.

Paul Valletta of the State Association of Firefighters said Raimondo "cooked the books" with actuarial assumptions and conservative market projections that exaggerate the pension system's problems. He accused her of supporting "draconian" changes to the retirement system to raise her political profile.

"She created this problem and now she's riding in on a white horse," Valletta said.

Raimondo, a Democrat, insists that rising pension costs could cripple governments and force tax hikes or budget cuts. The state's unfunded pension liability stands at $7 billion, and the state's pension costs are set to double next year to over $600 million. The state retirement system covers 66,000 public teachers, state and municipal workers, police, firefighters and judges.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are also very humble I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS. We need to reduce the borrowing first. I then followed with long term deficit reduction requires both tax increases and cuts. Just because you don't understand that, does not mean your statements are facts. I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. I am a big boy, you aren't going to make me feel sad or inferior with your name calling. Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995. Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. I think JohnR's thoughts on capital gains taxes are right on target. The most reasonable analysis of economics, in my opinion (I guess if they were your ideas, they would be facts), is that both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues. That is not an original idea of mine, but it makes sense based on mathematics. I will admit, you are right, just taxes can't do it. I have pointed that out each time I have posted. Maybe you missed that

Zimmy, in an earlier post, you said tax hikes would put a "big dent", or something like that, in the annual deficit. The annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. From what I recall,liberals say tax hikes on the rich MIGHT get us $90 billion. $90 billion is less than 1/15th of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo.

Zimmy, can you answer a direct question? If social security and medicare need at least $50 trillion in the next 30 years, and you oppose conservative proposals to scale back the benefits, WHAT'S YOUR SOLUTION? Leave that problem for our kids and grandkids?

"Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995."

Really? Can you back that up please? Just because Sean Penn says it, doesn't make it fact.

"Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. "

The subprime mortgage crisis wrecked the economy. In my opinion, no one party caused that. Lots of blame to go around.

"both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues."

I have asked you more than once to post some numbers that support the notion that tax hikes can have a meaningful impact. I keep asking, and you keep dodging.

We need more tax DOLLARS. If the economy grows, and tax rates stay the same, the feds get more tax dollars. That is the best solution. You cannot even prove that raising tax rates will result in more tax dollars collected...the Bush tax cuts proved that tax rates and tax dollars collected do not always move in the same direction.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zimmy, in an earlier post, you said tax hikes would put a "big dent", or something like that, in the annual deficit. The annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. From what I recall,liberals say tax hikes on the rich MIGHT get us $90 billion. $90 billion is less than 1/15th of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo.

The deficit did hit 1.5 trillion in 2010 but is shrinking and projected to be about 1/2 as big in a few years. 90 Billion out of $750 B is quite a lot of money, especially when you add up the cumulative impact.

We need more tax DOLLARS. If the economy grows, and tax rates stay the same, the feds get more tax dollars. That is the best solution. You cannot even prove that raising tax rates will result in more tax dollars collected...the Bush tax cuts proved that tax rates and tax dollars collected do not always move in the same direction.

Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time.

To keep taxes low on the "hope" that the economy improves will quite possibly just saddle Americans with more debt. Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING.

If the Bush tax cuts proved anything it's that investment in jobs the past decade was more a function of demand than supply.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree.

while he rarely offeres any evidence to back up his many assertions, he did say that a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that...

btw..many of these "loopholes" are merely government established incentives to get businesses and individuals to act in a certain way through the tax code, we blame the businesses and individuals for taking the carrots?

this disagreement is ...which comes first...

unfortunately, the track record and tendency from those in government on both sides of the aisle shows little concern for a reduction in the size and scope of government...any increase in taxes will simply be an affirmation to continue current programs at their current growth rates and a return to searching for new and faster ways to expand government...

like giving a fat guy a candybar after telling him he needs to go on a diet...

the fat guys tells you to give him the candy bar first because he's really hungry and that he'll start the diet at the end of the month...promise

apologies to any fat guys that I've offended....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

while he rarely offeres any evidence to back up his many assertions, he did say that a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that...

btw..many of these "loopholes" are merely government established incentives to get businesses and individuals to act in a certain way through the tax code, we blame the businesses and individuals for taking the carrots?

this disagreement is ...which comes first...

unfortunately, the track record and tendency from those in government on both sides of the aisle shows little concern for a reduction in the size and scope of government...any increase in taxes will simply be an affirmation to continue current programs at their current growth rates and a return to searching for new and faster ways to expand government...

like giving a fat guy a candybar after telling him he needs to go on a diet...

the fat guys tells you to give him the candy bar first because he's really hungry and that he'll start the diet at the end of the month...promise

apologies to any fat guys that I've offended....

"a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that..."

We need more tax revenue, meaning, we need more tax dollars. Raising tax rates does not always increase revenue, just like when a store raises prices, that does not mean revenue will increase (not if you price yourself out of the market). If the economy grows, then even at the same tax rates, we have more tax revenue collected. We need to grow the stagnant economy (a raising tide does indeed lift all boats), not reduce anyone's after-tax pay.

Finally, every analysis I've ever seen, suggests that the effect of tax hikes is almost completely meaningless in the face of the debt. We simply cannot generate another $60 trillion in the next 30 years, even if we adopt North Korea's tax rates, we cannot begin to tax our way out of this. The effect of tax hikes is so insignificant, it's barely worth talking about, yet liberals are fanatically fixated on taxing the wealthy.

I do not like the situation we are in. If there was any reasonable analysis out there that said we could put a meaningful dent in the debt by tweaking taxes on the rich, that would make me very happy. I wish that were the case. But it's not.

Tax hikes might get us 10% of what we need. That means that the other 90% must come from spending cuts. I don't like that any more than liberals do. Unlike liberals, however, I am able to accept it.

If Obama is correct, taxing the wealthy more will bring in $90 billion a year. Our ANNUAL deficit is $1.5 trillion, our current debt is $14 trillion, and we need at least another $50 trillion for social security and Medicare (some actuaries say we need $100 trillion).

What is $90 billion a year? Nothing. If we collected $90 billion more in taxes from the rich, and if we used every cent of that to pay off curent debt, all that means is our debt increases $1.41 trillion this year, instead of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo. Our debt is still increasing by more than a trillion dollars.

Scott, where am I wrong? I just don't get it.

[scottw]

simplification of the tax code and elimination of "loopholes" as mentioned would effectively be a tax increase, it would also result in many who share none of the federal burden currently to make a contribution, would make it tougher for politicians to build in set asides and favors through tax policy carrots and business would not find it as necessary to buy favorable status and treatment...the current tax code is the playground of the well connected, all of these foundations and shelters that are little more that political arms of the various interests and government subsidies and investments are doled out based on patronage...

simply raising taxes on "the rich" is a desperate concept being offered by a desperate man in a situation that he loaths, which is that America is no longer in love with him so he needs to return to his roots and drum up some anger.... the people that have money will find ways to shelter their money through the complexities of the current tax code, the people hit the hardest will be those that are upwardly mobile, actively moving, investing and growing their particular field and that's who will be burdened at a time when their investments and energy are needed...