Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

This is one of a gazillion examples of why I never understand knuckledraggers and their desire to cut their noses off to spite their faces.

Presumably we all want the gumbint to live within its means, while we have different versions of how that would look. We also almost all agree current politicians are spineless weasels. SO, if you could hold their feet to the fire, by reminding them of a time when the govt, governed by a Dem in the WH and a GOP Congress, DID in fact live within its means, and if it could do so then why can't it do so now - why wouldn't you if the goal is again the govt living within its means.

However, in a desire born out of decades of frustration to not give any Dems any credit for anything positive, knucks like Fishy and Flaggy will insist that the hard fought balanced budget achievement of the late 90's somehow was an illusion, even though there's plenty of credit to spread around, and singular blame for that surplus being squandered (George W Bush - a guy no conservative claims to have voted for). Even IF there was a temporary revenue spike, pols still had to make the choice to pay down the debt as opposed to blowing it on spending/tax cuts for GOP campaign contributors. But by blowing these accomplishments off, you now give spineless pols an out to never balance a budget under the guise of "it can't be done". Makes no sense to me.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

This is one of a gazillion examples of why I never understand knuckledraggers and their desire to cut their noses off to spite their faces.

Presumably we all want the gumbint to live within its means, while we have different versions of how that would look. We also almost all agree current politicians are spineless weasels. SO, if you could hold their feet to the fire, by reminding them of a time when the govt, governed by a Dem in the WH and a GOP Congress, DID in fact live within its means, and if it could do so then why can't it do so now - why wouldn't you if the goal is again the govt living within its means.

However, in a desire born out of decades of frustration to not give any Dems any credit for anything positive, knucks like Fishy and Flaggy will insist that the hard fought balanced budget achievement of the late 90's somehow was an illusion, even though there's plenty of credit to spread around, and singular blame for that surplus being squandered (George W Bush - a guy no conservative claims to have voted for). Even IF there was a temporary revenue spike, pols still had to make the choice to pay down the debt as opposed to blowing it on spending/tax cuts for GOP campaign contributors. But by blowing these accomplishments off, you now give spineless pols an out to never balance a budget under the guise of "it can't be done". Makes no sense to me.

Didn't they use the Social Security Trust fund to balance it? Seems hollow to me. Not a single clown in Washington for over 50 years has done honest budgeting. The latest trick by the Republicans to bypass their own controls to increase the defense budget again is just more evidence of that.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Didn't they use the Social Security Trust fund to balance it? Seems hollow to me. Not a single clown in Washington for over 50 years has done honest budgeting. The latest trick by the Republicans to bypass their own controls to increase the defense budget again is just more evidence of that.

Both Clinton AND Dubya did. It's a pot of money. It all goes into a "general fund". This isn't limited to the federal government either; Rhode Island's been using FHWA funds to pay for other state stuff for years.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

This is one of a gazillion examples of why I never understand knuckledraggers and their desire to cut their noses off to spite their faces.

Presumably we all want the gumbint to live within its means, while we have different versions of how that would look. We also almost all agree current politicians are spineless weasels. SO, if you could hold their feet to the fire, by reminding them of a time when the govt, governed by a Dem in the WH and a GOP Congress, DID in fact live within its means, and if it could do so then why can't it do so now - why wouldn't you if the goal is again the govt living within its means.

However, in a desire born out of decades of frustration to not give any Dems any credit for anything positive, knucks like Fishy and Flaggy will insist that the hard fought balanced budget achievement of the late 90's somehow was an illusion, even though there's plenty of credit to spread around, and singular blame for that surplus being squandered (George W Bush - a guy no conservative claims to have voted for). Even IF there was a temporary revenue spike, pols still had to make the choice to pay down the debt as opposed to blowing it on spending/tax cuts for GOP campaign contributors. But by blowing these accomplishments off, you now give spineless pols an out to never balance a budget under the guise of "it can't be done". Makes no sense to me.

I love how you believe I think a balanced budget is an illusion. At no point did I say that. What I said was that they were able to take advantage of a revenue boom ignited by innovation. A balanced budget could happen whether that occurs or not. It's a bit convenient for your argument that the surplus disappeared at the same time that both the dot-com boom created a bubble that had burst, and the 9/11 events happened (regardless of your belief if it was an inside job, it's irrelevant, as the resulting actions taken are undeniable). That doesn't mean that it can't be done. Just don't blame a previous administration for having a trillion dollar deficit because you wanted to bail out banks under the threat of martial law.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

I love how you believe I think a balanced budget is an illusion. At no point did I say that. What I said was that they were able to take advantage of a revenue boom ignited by innovation. A balanced budget could happen whether that occurs or not. It's a bit convenient for your argument that the surplus disappeared at the same time that both the dot-com boom created a bubble that had burst, and the 9/11 events happened (regardless of your belief if it was an inside job, it's irrelevant, as the resulting actions taken are undeniable). That doesn't mean that it can't be done. Just don't blame a previous administration for having a trillion dollar deficit because you wanted to bail out banks under the threat of martial law.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Your ability to pack so much stupidity in such a short post is breathtaking! Did your girlfriend spring a leak again?

1) The surplus disappeared because of 2T in gimmicky tax cuts by your hero GWB.
2) Iraq war for another 2T based on neo-conservative fantasyland and doctored intelligence
3) Unfunded mandates such as prescription drug benefit - .5T
4) Massive increase in defense spending above and beyond war effort.

So, a dot-com bubble burst had little to do with the US swinging to 1T a year deficits by the end of Bush's term. Conservative incompetence did.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Your ability to pack so much stupidity in such a short post is breathtaking! Did your girlfriend spring a leak again?

1) The surplus disappeared because of 2T in gimmicky tax cuts by your hero GWB.
2) Iraq war for another 2T based on neo-conservative fantasyland and doctored intelligence
3) Unfunded mandates such as prescription drug benefit - .5T
4) Massive increase in defense spending above and beyond war effort.

So, a dot-com bubble burst had little to do with the US swinging to 1T a year deficits by the end of Bush's term. Conservative incompetence did.

You forgot about the housing bubble bursting. Which was way worse than the dot com and was entirely preventable if regulators/law enforcement had been doing their jobs.

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

You forgot about the housing bubble bursting. Which was way worse than the dot com and was entirely preventable if regulators/law enforcement had been doing their jobs.

Housing bubble wasn't really a 90's thing. More of a decade later event so I left it out.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Your ability to pack so much stupidity in such a short post is breathtaking! Did your girlfriend spring a leak again?

1) The surplus disappeared because of 2T in gimmicky tax cuts by your hero GWB.
2) Iraq war for another 2T based on neo-conservative fantasyland and doctored intelligence
3) Unfunded mandates such as prescription drug benefit - .5T
4) Massive increase in defense spending above and beyond war effort.

So, a dot-com bubble burst had little to do with the US swinging to 1T a year deficits by the end of Bush's term. Conservative incompetence did.

Two trillion? You combining years to hype your argument, or using inflation levels projected for 2060? BTW, regarding those "gimmicky tax cuts", you had a chance to let them expire in 2010 with a "favorable" legislative setup, and yet you kept them. Care to fess up to that one?

If you want to talk about "unfunded mandates", how about we talk about social security and medicare, running at a 2:1 deficit right now (based on the debt clock), and heavily expanded under your pet PPACA.

Funny thing is, we were on track for a balanced budget in 2007 until Pelosi's Congress decided to buy a whole bunch of stuff, including a bailout of Fannie and Freddie.

Enjoying that glass house of yours?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Housing bubble wasn't really a 90's thing. More of a decade later event so I left it out.

Housing bubble actually started in 1997 with the steady increase of prices.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Housing bubble wasn't really a 90's thing. More of a decade later event so I left it out.

Right but policy decisions don't exist in a bubble and the Bush administration's lax regulation led to much of that.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Right but policy decisions don't exist in a bubble and the Bush administration's lax regulation led to much of that.

Regulation changes started before Bush was in office, starting with Congressional bills that were put forth by both Rs and Ds, which were ultimately signed into law. The housing bubble is one of those things that can be equally applied to both parties as they both have a large group of members - many of them prominent - that voted in favor of the policies that helped shape it.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Regulation changes started before Bush was in office, starting with Congressional bills that were put forth by both Rs and Ds, which were ultimately signed into law. The housing bubble is one of those things that can be equally applied to both parties as they both have a large group of members - many of them prominent - that voted in favor of the policies that helped shape it.

Oh, but all the cool kids are blaming Bush. Heck, you could probably blame Bush for the Kennedy assassination; he was with the CIA at the time.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Regulation changes started before Bush was in office, starting with Congressional bills that were put forth by both Rs and Ds, which were ultimately signed into law. The housing bubble is one of those things that can be equally applied to both parties as they both have a large group of members - many of them prominent - that voted in favor of the policies that helped shape it.

Yeah I know some of the deregulation that caused parts of the financial crisis was set in place during the Clinton administration so that's a valid point.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

If you want to talk about "unfunded mandates", how about we talk about social security and medicare, running at a 2:1 deficit right now (based on the debt clock), and heavily expanded under your pet PPACA.

Aaah, what? Social Security is funded. And since we borrowed against it it's probably the most funded program we have in the entire government. As for Medicaid/Medicare, whatever. That will never be funded properly and will always be considered unfunded. Health Care in the US is a disaster. But, hey, if you're rich you get all that you need so that's all that matters, right?

And yeah, Clinton massively screwed up. However, regulations are basically BS anyway. The Republicans have starved the enforcement budgets so much for every single regulation there is that they may as well not even exist.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Aaah, what? Social Security is funded. And since we borrowed against it it's probably the most funded program we have in the entire government. As for Medicaid/Medicare, whatever. That will never be funded properly and will always be considered unfunded. Health Care in the US is a disaster. But, hey, if you're rich you get all that you need so that's all that matters, right?

And yeah, Clinton massively screwed up. However, regulations are basically BS anyway. The Republicans have starved the enforcement budgets so much for every single regulation there is that they may as well not even exist.

Then don't use discrimination in your enforcement (i.e. only going after blacks, or jews, or members of the Taxed Enough Already party), or create bills that are 2000 pages long and tell the legislators that you have to pass it to find out what's in it (both parties are guilty of the first one; the second one is from the mouth of your hero, Nancy Pelosi).

Medicare can save billions by one tiny thing: Allow those on it to pay for something generally covered by their "part plan" using other means. Heck, there isn't much reason for different part plans if you're going to do a single payer setup and still charge premiums, especially if the premiums are based upon how long you wait until after you're 65.

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Two trillion? You combining years to hype your argument, or using inflation levels projected for 2060? BTW, regarding those "gimmicky tax cuts", you had a chance to let them expire in 2010 with a "favorable" legislative setup, and yet you kept them. Care to fess up to that one?

If you want to talk about "unfunded mandates", how about we talk about social security and medicare, running at a 2:1 deficit right now (based on the debt clock), and heavily expanded under your pet PPACA.

Funny thing is, we were on track for a balanced budget in 2007 until Pelosi's Congress decided to buy a whole bunch of stuff, including a bailout of Fannie and Freddie.

Enjoying that glass house of yours?

Are we still talking about what happened on planet Earth or did this version of events happen in the mythical land called Reaganistan? Because none of it makes sense. You do know, for example, that Bush privatized FNMA & Freddie Mac and that the govt has actually made money on that?

Second, social security is paid for up until approx 2040 give or take. Medicare IIRC about 2020. ACA is a paid for program that will reduce the deficit according to CBO.

Lastly, in 2012 gimmicky tax cuts were by and large canned by the O mercifully. The two year extension you speak of was to not raise taxes in the middle of the recession.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

So, getting back to Clinton era tax rates, and the accompanying revenue it would generate.

maybe you are just late to the party? the "conversation" had been about whether one could address income inequality primarily through a progressive income tax structure, and going back to the Clinton-era tax rates would exacerbate the income inequality by raising taxes on the lowest-income taxpayers.

Looking at the data, you could tax the top 1% at a 100% tax rate and still not have enough money to redistribute to everyone else at the "desired" level.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

But going to a flat tax, which you have often advocated, is a great idea?

Does one think macro and try to incorporate how people react to incentives?

What I've actually said, rather than be misquoted, is that trying to address "income inequality" merely by tearing down those at the top, is a fool's errand; those at the top are too well-connected in both parties. They will merely hire mercenaries to protect themselves, and I don't think that is your desired method of redistributing income, is it? If you really care about actual people*, then a far more effective way to address "income inequality" is to raise up those people near the bottom.






* it seems that some progressives don't actually talk about human beings, they talk only about abstract statistical groupings. "Shelter the homeless" but no concern about helping people without homes finding a decent place to live, "cover the uninsured" without any thought about helping people who lack health insurance find access to decent healthcare, etc. There are only "the homeless" or "the poor" or "the unemployed" but not a single homeless person, poor person, or unemployed person, has any existence, merely the abstract group matters.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

I have no problem with a progressive flat tax.

Decide how much income is exempt. 40K? 50K? Whatever. Then flat tax everything earned above that. Done.

This needs to include the removal of all payroll taxes. Roll Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid into the formula.

Oh, and money, cap gains, whatever, is equal to labor. Period.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Regulation changes started before Bush was in office, starting with Congressional bills that were put forth by both Rs and Ds, which were ultimately signed into law. The housing bubble is one of those things that can be equally applied to both parties as they both have a large group of members - many of them prominent - that voted in favor of the policies that helped shape it.

Most regulation by either party seems more like Whac-a-Mole than anything else. They are always solving yesterday's problems and exacerbating today's problems in the process. It seems like no one has ever learned that people change their behavior whenever a new law or new regulation is enacted.

Even if one person really is smarter than anyone else, no one person is smarter than everyone else. The number of times a group of people has sat down together and come up with an idea that no one of the people individually could ever have thought of is remarkable. Regulators are better off sticking to sound basic principles and then allowing creativity to flourish within the boundaries of those principles instead of trying to micromanage particular outcomes. The latter will always fail.