Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Except that the data supports the fact that they make the pie bigger at slightly higher marginal tax rates, too.

Being that the Laffer curve is a theoretical instrument, there is nevertheless a lot of research that argues the peak in the US is at 70%. We're no where near that.

Yup. It's the Laffer curve, not the Laffer line*. If tax cuts create income effects for some folks such that less economic activity is needed to maintain satisfactory standard of living, it's not at all clear that overall economic output would grow. It all depends on locating the specific point on that curve.

I believe the precise formula for that is:

If GOP then point = dangerously close to the right tail of the curve. If DEM then safely on the left side.

It's mainly an interesting theoretical device. It's much better at motivating political debate than guiding policy. And it probably has been ever since it was penned on a cocktail napkin (I'm assuming that old story is true...)

Year, I know, lines are curves, too. Work with me here

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

It's mainly an interesting theoretical device.

It also makes perfect sense when you stop to consider the consequences of the economic reaction to tax hikes and tax cuts instead of being simplistic and say "tax cuts = less money for government, and therefore have to be 'paid for.'"

It has been noted that the happy medium is apt to shift over time. In a down economy, it's hard not to believe that raising tax rates won't have a detrimental effect on how much the government brings in.

EDIT: I just realized something. "It's mainly an interesting theoretical device" sounds an awful lot like the creationist line on evolution.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

No, it's mainly an interesting theoretical device because the gap between model and reality is so large.

Beware any model that explains a complex output (economic growth) by way of a single influence (resting on the large assumption that all is is equal).

In the real world, ceteris is never paribus. There are so many things that go into determining economic growth that any Laffer-like exercise should be viewed as an interesting theoretical device. Maybe creationists have abused that rhetoric. I don't pay much attention to them, so I'll take your word on it.

Point is, there are so many moving parts involved in economic growth, that it's (pardon) laffable to make too much of single-variable explanations. The reason we still hear it mentioned so much is, as I've said, because it's politically interesting. It allows politicians on both right and left to imagine that they have much more control over things than they actually do.

Let me put this more plainly. If our national economy were so sensitive and responsive to short term political inputs, don't you think that someone would have broken the d--n thing a long time ago?

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Give me a break. You might want to read that first link you posted with quotes from McConnell:





Ok, but what's the Delta? If that $785 billion is less than the amount the taxes would have taken in, then it's still a net loser. Tax receipts is not the same as net revenue.

what budget "experts"?

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

No, that's not what it said - that was the increase in receipts.

If I cut taxes that would have brought in 1,000 in revenue, the Gov't is out 1,000 bucks. But then, from that new baseline (which is what the article argues, since that time frame starts in 2004, the year after the last of Bush's tax cuts) revenues go up +750, the net difference is still -250.

The point is measuring the increased revenue from the year after the tax cuts fully went into effect is the wrong way to measure the entire change. If you want to capture the full impact of the change, it cannot be just revenue generated from a baseline of lower taxes, it has to be that revenue compared against what the higher tax rates would have generated.

Here's where we really disagree, the crux if you will.

and it may seem tangential to the whole bringing in revenue/taxes etc.

It's our money. We go through election cycles where we put in people who feel it's our duty or obligation to give more, or their right to take more. Then we get some people who choose to take less from us.


I understand we're in either side of a dichotomy. I'm not going to come around to Keynesian theory anytime soon, and I'm sure you won't be coming around to Reaganism (limited government, lower tax burden, strong military, etc)

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I understand we're in either side of a dichotomy. I'm not going to come around to Keynesian theory anytime soon, and I'm sure you won't be coming around to Reaganism (limited government, lower tax burden, strong military, etc)

See, this is the part I don't get. How is it exactly a lower tax burden if the Feds spend the money anyway? Doesn't somebody eventually have to pay the bill? Is leaving the bill for my grandchildren really giving myself a lower tax bill?

Perhaps that's it right there. People who don't have kids and don't care what happens when they take a dirt nap are really the ones setting policy.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

what budget "experts"?

You should read the article you linked to - and click on the links provided in said article. There were links to papers by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, as well as to a paper that Obama's outgoing budget director wrote while at Brookings.

Here's where we really disagree, the crux if you will.

and it may seem tangential to the whole bringing in revenue/taxes etc.

It's our money. We go through election cycles where we put in people who feel it's our duty or obligation to give more, or their right to take more. Then we get some people who choose to take less from us.

Yes, it's our money. But as someone also pointed out (Rover?), it's our debt, too.

I understand we're in either side of a dichotomy. I'm not going to come around to Keynesian theory anytime soon, and I'm sure you won't be coming around to Reaganism (limited government, lower tax burden, strong military, etc)

It's funny that you mention Reagan and those very principles, as his limited government really wasn't that limited. If that's what you believe, that's fine. All I ask is that you be intellectually honest about it. Our debt absolutely exploded during Reagan's time in office. The same thing applies to McConnell's boneheaded statements (and John Kyl's, too) about how tax cuts don't impact the deficit. They do, they impact it a lot. they basically shift how we pay. Instead of us paying with taxes, we end up paying with debt.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Beware any model that explains a complex output (economic growth) by way of a single influence (resting on the large assumption that all is is equal).

In the real world, ceteris is never paribus. There are so many things that go into determining economic growth that any Laffer-like exercise should be viewed as an interesting theoretical device. Maybe creationists have abused that rhetoric. I don't pay much attention to them, so I'll take your word on it.

So... if I'm reading this correctly, the economy is so complex that we should be as simplistic as tax cuts = lower revenue, tax hikes = higher revenue?

Let me put this more plainly. If our national economy were so sensitive and responsive to short term political inputs, don't you think that someone would have broken the d--n thing a long time ago?

Too late.

By the way, the good news is, you are by far the most intelligent liberal on this board. The bad news is... it wasn't much of a contest. (but I do respect your ability to think)

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Let me put this more plainly. If our national economy were so sensitive and responsive to short term political inputs, don't you think that someone would have broken the d--n thing a long time ago?

If it's not broken then what is it?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/previewing-ohio.html

We'll start rolling out our Ohio poll results tomorrow but there's one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: by a 50-42 margin voters there say they'd rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.

Recovery summer!

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

See, this is the part I don't get. How is it exactly a lower tax burden if the Feds spend the money anyway? Doesn't somebody eventually have to pay the bill? Is leaving the bill for my grandchildren really giving myself a lower tax bill?

Perhaps that's it right there. People who don't have kids and don't care what happens when they take a dirt nap are really the ones setting policy.

Well they shouldn't spend the money really, or they shouldn't be spending $ they don't have. that's mostly the point. give us security/military, fire, police, limited government, and the rest we'll work out ourselves.

I just think that we should elect people responsible and honest enough to understand they can't break our backs with taxes, and simultaneously they can't spend our $ or pass bills requiring even more money from us than what's already coming in for progams we totally disagree with.

the 65% of people who don't want this healthcare bill are the ones who will pay for it. not the 20-30% on the government dole who really want it but really don't even need it.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

You should read the article you linked to - and click on the links provided in said article. There were links to papers by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, as well as to a paper that Obama's outgoing budget director wrote while at Brookings.



Yes, it's our money. But as someone also pointed out (Rover?), it's our debt, too.



It's funny that you mention Reagan and those very principles, as his limited government really wasn't that limited. If that's what you believe, that's fine. All I ask is that you be intellectually honest about it. Our debt absolutely exploded during Reagan's time in office. The same thing applies to McConnell's boneheaded statements (and John Kyl's, too) about how tax cuts don't impact the deficit. They do, they impact it a lot. they basically shift how we pay. Instead of us paying with taxes, we end up paying with debt.

did read the article. but the thing is "facts" are spun many different ways. and since I'm a fiscal conservative you know whose numbers/arguments I'm going to be disposed to agree with.

re: it's our debt....I'd argue it's not our debt because we haven't chosen what the government is using our future earned money on. healthcare has 65% or thereabouts of citizens firmly against the bill.

that's not my debt. yeah literally the gov't will TAKE it from me. but an honest assessment is that Obama is stealing that money from the 65% who oppose it. because we/they really have no recourse other than not paying taxes at all and that will land us in jail.

as for Reagan. I'm not saddling him with the debts due to a democrat congress that refused to cut any pork/spending on pet programs. that's not his fault. and his government wasn't big in the Obama/socialist-type way. only if you focus solely on the military could you say he really expanded government. if you focus on military spending, and I agreed with all of Reagan's spending there from Star Wars to a 600-ship navy, then yeah you could say he "grew" government in that very scalpel precise way.

Reagan was the greatest boon to the private sector this country has seen in the white house.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I don't know that I would pin that on Clinton.

So you can't blame Clinton or any of his / the Fed's policies for inflating a dot-com bubble that burst in '01, but you can blame W for the housing bubble that burst around the time of Obama's election?

And the one thing that markets hate most is serious unknown. And a big markets spook can easily be enough to cause a slow down esp after the run up we had seen.

It almost looks like you're blaming the stock market collapse that began in 2000 on the change in the party controlling the White House. I hope to christ that isn't what you're saying, because that is horrendously stupid and ignores what actually happened with the stock market (rampant speculation that went too far and led to companies trading at insane prices when they had little to no chance of ever being profitable).

As for scooby - I don't think the childless people are the ones setting policy. I'd wager that a majority - probably a big majority - of Congress is married with kids / grandkids. So the problem is policy is set by people collecting the child tax credit.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If it's not broken then what is it?

I left that door so wide open that you and Red Cloud both walked through it.


I get it. By our own standards, the economy sucks. GWB's much maligned statement wasn't actually wrong (though it was politically tone deaf). The fundamentals are strong. If we're going to point to a single factor as ultimately responsible for growth, it isn't social welfare, and it isn't tax policy. It's productivity growth. We may have lost our mojo at the moment, but we haven't lost our ability to get it back.

If you want to see what a really broken economy looks like, the world beyond our borders offers plenty of examples.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The speech by Obama tonight was short and magnanimous towards Dubya and even the hawks. It was surreal to hear Chris Matthews afterward say with a straight face, "most of us (meaning the MSM) took a healthy and skeptical attitude towards this war from the very beginning and we have been proved right."

The parallelism in the speech was unmistakable: first term Iraq, second term Afghanistan. So we know one thing we'll be voting for (or against).

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

So... if I'm reading this correctly, the economy is so complex that we should be as simplistic as tax cuts = lower revenue, tax hikes = higher revenue?

This is sarcasm, right? I thought the point was clear enough. The problem is with the equation itself.

I love politics as much as the next guy, but the Laffer curve is about as big an overstatement of political control of the economy as you'll see. Both left and right have an inflated sense of their self-importance, and simple equations like that feed right into it. $.02

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If we're going to point to a single factor as ultimately responsible for growth, it isn't social welfare, and it isn't tax policy. It's productivity growth. We may have lost our mojo at the moment, but we haven't lost our ability to get it back.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

According to the gov't, last year's productivity growth was decent (3.5%).

The worst productivity growth rates in the past 30 years (< or = to 1%):
1980
1982
1987
1989
1993
1994
1995
2006
2008

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

You should read the article you linked to - and click on the links provided in said article. There were links to papers by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, as well as to a paper that Obama's outgoing budget director wrote while at Brookings.



Yes, it's our money. But as someone also pointed out (Rover?), it's our debt, too.



It's funny that you mention Reagan and those very principles, as his limited government really wasn't that limited. If that's what you believe, that's fine. All I ask is that you be intellectually honest about it. Our debt absolutely exploded during Reagan's time in office. The same thing applies to McConnell's boneheaded statements (and John Kyl's, too) about how tax cuts don't impact the deficit. They do, they impact it a lot. they basically shift how we pay. Instead of us paying with taxes, we end up paying with debt.

It is the debt of the whole country so it is 'our debt' I guess. The use of 'our money' is funny because that sure seems to be how many people on here feel...give me benefits, right every wrong by spending more, create a large debt and let's pay for it with 'our' money.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

re: it's our debt....I'd argue it's not our debt because we haven't chosen what the government is using our future earned money on. healthcare has 65% or thereabouts of citizens firmly against the bill.

that's not my debt. yeah literally the gov't will TAKE it from me. but an honest assessment is that Obama is stealing that money from the 65% who oppose it. because we/they really have no recourse other than not paying taxes at all and that will land us in jail.

It is the debt of the whole country so it is 'our debt' I guess. The use of 'our money' is funny because that sure seems to be how many people on here feel...give me benefits, right every wrong by spending more, create a large debt and let's pay for it with 'our' money.

Let's go back to the Bush tax cuts.

The Bush/Gore campaign hit on two different ideas on what to do with our newfound surplus. Bush wanted tax cuts to return the surplus to the people. Gore wanted to use the surplus to pay down debt.

You can't have it both ways, however. If tax cuts end up increasing deficits and thus increasing the debt, then it is absolutely our debt - even though we've gotten more of our money back from the IRS.

This is why people don't take the GOP seriously on their calls for deficit reduction. They've got a 30 year track record of massively increasing the deficit and adding to our debt, and then washing their hands of it and saying that it's not our problem.

Contrast that with the moral overtones about individuals who have borrowed too much or are underwater on their mortgages, and the tone is much different.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Tom Coburn not too keen on a Newt Gingrich Presidential run:

On Friday, at a town hall in small town Oklahoma, conservative Sen. Tom Coburn said Newt Gingrich is "the last person I'd vote for, for president." Gingrich is "a super-smart man but he doesn't know anything about commitment to marriage." Gingrich lacks, in Coburn's view, "the character traits necessary to be a great president."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ikely_presidential_prospects_2012_106951.html