What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Um, I have? I don't think so, because I don't think I knew that. I think you are right that inflation is much more complicated than just the CPI, though, and I'd like to read up more on it. Lacking anything better (and being wary of "explanations" which are jeremiads), I'm going to start here.

I'd like to see an apples-to-apples comparison, if they changed the way the metric was defined in 1991. I have no doubt the government tries to dress up its numbers, which is one reason I prefer to think of U6 rather than U3 as the actual unemployment rate.
I may have been thinking of your unemployment comments. If so, my mistake. At any rate, CPI operates on the same principal as unemployment. Make the numbers sound better than they actually are. I know the excuse on CPI is that food and energy are too unstable and therefore too hard to measure, but come on this is the technology age. A consumer price index that doesn't include food and energy is a joke.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If (when) the economy gets going again, wouldn't that lead to more jobs which should lead to more tax revenue regardless of the tax rate??

I'm thinking that those numbnuts should stop the bleeping posturing and figure out the best method to get the private sector jumpstarted so we can have more citizens earning and spending money and paying taxes.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If (when) the economy gets going again, wouldn't that lead to more jobs which should lead to more tax revenue regardless of the tax rate??
It would. As has been stated previously, a significant portion of the deficit is due to the recession + generally anemic growth that has followed.
I'm thinking that those numbnuts should stop the bleeping posturing and figure out the best method to get the private sector jumpstarted so we can have more citizens earning and spending money and paying taxes.
Well, they first need to realize this is a global marketplace - not just for goods but for jobs as well. If we want companies to locate here (and provide these jobs that we supposedly want), the cost per unit produced must be lower here than elsewhere. There's a number of things the government can do to help with that, although Scooby wouldn't be a fan of some of it as it's "corporate welfare". :p
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If (when) the economy gets going again, wouldn't that lead to more jobs which should lead to more tax revenue regardless of the tax rate??

I'm thinking that those numbnuts should stop the bleeping posturing and figure out the best method to get the private sector jumpstarted so we can have more citizens earning and spending money and paying taxes.

"If" is the correct word. You shouldn't even have bothered with "when".

Sure, give more money to corporations so they can send it all overseas. It's always going to be more expensive to run a company here cause we have these things called laws that other countries don't have. Maybe if we throw away the environment, health care, and the courts we can compete with the Chinese but I doubt it.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

"If" is the correct word. You shouldn't even have bothered with "when".
I'm sure many said this during the Great Depression. They were wrong.
Sure, give more money to corporations so they can send it all overseas. It's always going to be more expensive to run a company here cause we have these things called laws that other countries don't have. Maybe if we throw away the environment, health care, and the courts we can compete with the Chinese but I doubt it.
No. You give them X worth of incentives so that they locate here and provide Y jobs which yields Z tax revenue. As long as Z is equal to or greater than X, it's worthwhile for the government to pursue this policy. The key is to attach the incentive(s) to the jobs.

As for China, they aren't the be-all-end-all. Once they start running low on skilled laborers, they will have to battle wage inflation (which I think is already happening). That will eat away at their competitive advantage (since wages here have been and remain relatively flat).
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The point is, his talking point (which was originally that revenue is *always* 19% of GDP, now it is always <19%) is wrong. But I bet he says it again anyway.

Actually, I've said its the average. In a recession revenue is obviously going to be down since we tie it to income. The more important point is that is rarely goes over 19% of GDP. What we really should be having here is two seperate discussions. 1) how to get Federal spending down to 19% of GDP so that it is sustainable and 2)the best means of raising said revenue for the gov't.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If (when) the economy gets going again, wouldn't that lead to more jobs which should lead to more tax revenue regardless of the tax rate??

Yes. obviously:):) it was the Bush Tax cuts that spurred the 35% growth from 03-06 and not the tax write offs from prior recession 01-03 nor the Leverage-Housing-Banking.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
Federal revenue normally increases every year. In fact, revenues have declined in only five years since 1962. The 35 percent growth between 2003 and 2006 is significant – the last major growth in revenue was between 1997 and 2000, when the economy was booming and federal receipts rose 28.2 percent. But the recent three-year period also comes after three years of decreases, a drop Viard attributes to the 2001 tax cuts

federal%20revenue%20bar%20chart(1).jpg


In 2006, according to the CBO, individual income tax revenue was 1,043.9 billion, an increase of 5 percent since 2001. Corporate tax revenue was 353.9 billion in 2006, a 134 percent rise from 2001. That’s a dramatic increase.

“It really is astonishing,” Viard says of those numbers. But he can’t point to major corporate tax cuts that would have spurred the growth. Corporate profits are doing very well and the economy is growing, but “I don’t know that there’s a single, clear cut reason for that.”
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Grover Norquist and Ronald Reagan's rotting corpse have a sad.

A June 9 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 61 percent of people believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit.

A June 7 Pew poll found strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67 percent of people favor raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes, 66 percent raising income tax rates on those making more than $250,000, and 62 percent favor limiting tax deductions for large corporations. A plurality of people would also limit the mortgage interest deduction.

A May 26 Lake Research poll of Colorado voters found that they support higher taxes on the rich to shore-up Social Security’s finances by a 44 percent to 25 percent margin.

A May 13 Bloomberg poll found that only one third of people believe it is possible to substantially reduce the budget deficit without higher taxes; two thirds do not.

A May 12 Ipsos/Reuters poll found that three-fifths of people would support higher taxes to reduce the deficit.

An April 29 Gallup poll found that only 20 percent of people believe the budget deficit should be reduced only by cutting spending; 76 percent say that higher taxes must play a role.

An April 25 USC/Los Angeles Times poll of Californians found that by about a 2-to-1 margin voters favor raising taxes to deal with the state’s budget problems over cutting spending alone.

An April 22 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 72 percent of people favor raising taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit. It also found that 66 percent of people believe tax increases will be necessary to reduce the deficit versus 19 percent who believe spending cuts alone are sufficient.

An April 20 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin people favor a combination of higher taxes and spending cuts over spending cuts alone to reduce the deficit. It also found that 72 percent of people favor raising taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit and it is far and away the most popular deficit reduction measure.

An April 20 Public Religion Research Institute poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin, people believe that the wealthy should pay more taxes than the poor or middle class. Also, 62 percent of people believe that growing inequality of wealth is a serious problem.

An April 18 McClatchy-Marist poll found that voters support higher taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit by a 2-to-1 margin, including 45 percent of self-identified Tea Party members.

An April 18 Gallup poll found that 67 percent of people do not believe that corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and 59 percent believe that the rich do not pay their fair share.

On April 1, Tulchin Research released a poll showing that voters in California overwhelmingly support higher taxes on the rich to deal with the state’s budgetary problems.

A March 15 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that only 31 percent of voters support the Republican policy of only cutting spending to reduce the deficit; 64 percent believe higher taxes will also be necessary.

A March 2 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of people would support a surtax on millionaires to help reduce the budget deficit, and 68 percent would support eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000.

A February 15 CBS News poll found that only 49 percent of people believe that reducing the deficit will require cuts in programs that benefit them; 41 percent do not. Also, only 37 percent of people believe that reducing the deficit will require higher taxes on them; 59 percent do not.

A January 20 CBS News/New York Times poll found that close to two-thirds of people would rather raise taxes than cut benefits for Social Security or Medicare in order to stabilize their finances. The poll also found that if taxes must be raised, 33 percent would favor a national sales tax, 32 percent would support restricting the mortgage interest deduction, 12 percent would raise the gasoline taxes, and 10 percent would tax health care benefits.

On January 3, a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll found that 61 percent of people would rather raise taxes on the rich to balance the budget than cut defense, Social Security or Medicare.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Curious how many of those people support raising taxes on everyone, not just the rich. They should let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire, not just the ones on the rich.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I'm sure many said this during the Great Depression. They were wrong.

Considering that the economy was in recession when Bush II took office and his entire economy was based on vapor money from home loans the economy has been in the tank for over a decade. The Great Depression ran from 1929 to 1941. This Great recession started in 2001 and is still going strong. If we can get it to last (we're trying to on Capitol Hill) a few more years we'll have surpassed The Great Depression in overall time.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Considering that the economy was in recession when Bush II took office and his entire economy was based on vapor money from home loans the economy has been in the tank for over a decade. The Great Depression ran from 1929 to 1941. This Great recession started in 2001 and is still going strong. If we can get it to last (we're trying to on Capitol Hill) a few more years we'll have surpassed The Great Depression in overall time.
Except the federal government, through massive deficit spending and the real estate bubble, has avoided much of the effect of the great recession, though the last few years, even the deficit spending can only paper over so much of the underlying fundamentals. Until the last few years, most people wouldn't have said the economy was bad in the 2000s. So, we've to some extent avoided paying the piper, but eventually the piper will be paid, just more by future generations and less now.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Except the federal government, through massive deficit spending and the real estate bubble, has avoided much of the effect of the great recession, though the last few years, even the deficit spending can only paper over so much of the underlying fundamentals. Until the last few years, most people wouldn't have said the economy was bad in the 2000s. So, we've to some extent avoided paying the piper, but eventually the piper will be paid, just more by future generations and less now.

Considering the dot com aftermath, 9/11, and the housing collapse all happened in the 2000's I'd say you're 100% wrong.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Considering the dot com aftermath, 9/11, and the housing collapse all happened in the 2000's I'd say you're 100% wrong.

I think that most people would agree with Bob, but then again most people are stupid.

I don't think that things were as bad as Scooby says they would be, because NO ONE on the planet can be as negative and pessimistic as Scooby, but at the same time the fundimentals and foundation of the economy were not as strong as they appeared do to all the smoke and mirrors that were used over the last decade to make the average person believe that the economy was humming along nicely.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I think that most people would agree with Bob, but then again most people are stupid.

I don't think that things were as bad as Scooby says they would be, because NO ONE on the planet can be as negative and pessimistic as Scooby, but at the same time the fundimentals and foundation of the economy were not as strong as they appeared do to all the smoke and mirrors that were used over the last decade to make the average person believe that the economy was humming along nicely.

It's quite amazing what and extra 5 trillion from Bush (debt went from about 5-10) and an extra 5 trillion from Obama can do to mask the hell were in.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...el/5-trillion-added-national-debt-under-bush/
When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion

Current Debt.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Curious how many of those people support raising taxes on everyone, not just the rich. They should let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire, not just the ones on the rich.

Works for me. Uncapping the payroll tax should happen at the same time or, better still, ending all payroll taxes and just raising the tax rates commensurately.

Each side -- the no taxers and the no cutters -- are going to have to be forced back from their positions. Their feigned apocalypses are trumped by the real apocalypse that happens if they continue to get their "principled" way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top