Biden Blames Unpopularity Of Administration On....Wait For It......

[shortylickens]

Did McCowen hijack your account?

Yeah that sounded a little direct and simple for Moonbeam. WTF?

 

[yllus]

How exactly does cutting taxes cause a deficit again?

Hasn't the majority of the TARP money been repaid?

Example: Year one, federal government taxes the population $1 million. It spends $1 million. Breaks even. Year two, federal government taxes the population $0.5 mil. It spends $1 million. What's the result?

def·i·cit –noun

1. the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount.
2. the amount by which expenditures or liabilities exceed income or assets.
3. a lack or shortage; deficiency.
4. a disadvantage, impairment, or handicap: The team's major deficit is its poor pitching.
5. a loss, as in the operation of a business.

TARP is in fact looking pretty good.

ummm Bush's tax cuts come to end after this year.

So how are they causing deficit problems 9 years from now??

I don't pretend to know every detail of the graph posted, but the cuts were in place for what year, 2006? I don't imagine that the impact of four years of historically high spending coupled with lowered tax revenue will disappear overnight.

The ASSumption - or rather, huge leap of faith is on your side. Nowhere close to every tax cut has been stimulative, particularly in the long term. Which is exactly why you see the impact of the Bush tax cuts expanding on the graph.

Also, don't assume a damned thing about me - I don't love taxes any more than I love a root canal. What I am in favor of is basic fiscal responsibility - instituting a tax cut with no commensurate cuts in spending it just plan idiocy.

The facts don't seem to bear out the tax cuts -> growth theory.

The Heritage Foundation: Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Many of those who desire additional tax revenues regularly call on Congress to raise tax rates, but tax revenues are a function of two variables: tax rates and the tax base. The tax base typically moves in the opposite direction of the tax rate, partially negating the revenue impact of tax rate changes. Accordingly, Chart 4 shows little correlation between tax rates and tax revenues. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a per*cent of GDP.

Chart 5 shows the nearly perfect correlation between GDP and tax revenues. Despite major fluc*tuations in income tax rates, long-term tax revenues have grown at almost exactly the same rate as GDP, remaining between 17 percent and 20 percent of GDP for 46 of the past 50 years. Table 1 shows that the top marginal income tax rate topped 90 percent during the 1950s and that revenues averaged 17.2 percent of GDP. By the 1990s, the top marginal income tax rate averaged just 36 per*cent, and tax revenues averaged 18.3 percent of GDP. Regardless of the tax rate, tax revenues have almost always come in at approximately 18 percent of GDP.

 

[werepossum]

Example: Year one, federal government taxes the population $1 million. It spends $1 million. Breaks even. Year two, federal government taxes the population $0.5 mil. It spends $1 million. What's the result?



TARP is in fact looking pretty good.



I don't pretend to know every detail of the graph posted, but the cuts were in place for what year, 2006? I don't imagine that the impact of four years of historically high spending coupled with lowered tax revenue will disappear overnight.



The facts don't seem to bear out the tax cuts -> growth theory.

The Heritage Foundation: Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts

I agree in principle with the idea that tax cuts promote growth and pay for themselves. However, after the hyper inflation of the Carter years the Fed is hypersensitive to inflation, which it fights primarily by restricting the money supply to keep growth relatively low. So I'm not sure that still holds. It certainly didn't hold during the Bush years, but then we also took a hard blow from 9-11.

TARP is very simple - the loans were Bush's irresponsible spending to support his Wall Street buddies, the repayments are the Messiah's electrifying Almightiness. The Main Stream Media tells me so constantly. Passing HCR, with its implicit intent to destroy the health insurance companies, has invigorated the Democrats' most important constituency - the Main Stream Media.

 

[heyheybooboo]

ummm Bush's tax cuts come to end after this year.

So how are they causing deficit problems 9 years from now??

Reality check, Johnnie:

The projected deficits include the continuation of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts from Bush and the GOP Congress: Cost = $2.655 trillion

Also included is the cost to index to inflation the 2009 parameters of the AMT: $576 billion

Of course, the Adults-In-Charge could have done it the Bush/GOP Way, which was to totally ignore the expense in any budget projections and fund the 'patch' in annual supplementals that simply pile on more debt.

And, quite appropriately, since Bush and the GOP did not pay for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, they reside outside the constraints of PayGo.

Life's a bitch sometimes, ain't it, Johnnie?

Oh. Another btw: The Adults-In-Charge have included around $600 billion in tax cuts for persons who actually work for a living, in combination with a few 'tax bumps' for those over $250k. At least they're honest about it.

But please feel free to continue blathering. Ever hear of the 'Rope-A-Dope'?





--

 

[Patranus]

Reality check, Johnnie:

The projected deficits include the continuation of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts from Bush and the GOP Congress: Cost = $2.655 trillion

Again, tax cuts do not "cost money". Tax cuts decrease revenue. Revenue was (supposedly) lowered by 2.6 trillion.

If tax cuts cost the government money, that would mean that the government would have kept 100% of your income from taxes and then given you the income back. That isn't how the tax system works.

 

[werepossum]

Again, tax cuts do not "cost money". Tax cuts decrease revenue. Revenue was (supposedly) lowered by 2.6 trillion.

If tax cuts cost the government money, that would mean that the government would have kept 100% of your income from taxes and then given you the income back. That isn't how the tax system works.

That IS how it works in Progressoland - all money belongs first to government, to be parceled out to each according to his need.

 

[Harvey]

Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy END this year!

Starting next year the tax rates will return to the level they were prior to Bush taking office.

Explain to me how his tax cuts can be responsible for future deficits when they will no longer exist.

They already robbed the bank. The revenue we would have collected is already squandered and gone. No money was collected that otherwise would have paid current debts, funded already legislated, mandated future expenditures or acrued interest.

Explain how that can't be part of the reason for future deficits.

The worst part about the Bushwhackos' tax cuts is, they only helped support the lavish lifesyles of their wealthy contributors. All they did for most Americans was saddle us for generations with yet greater current and future debts.

Would you like to get into the ethics and morality of the fact that they multiplied that burden exponentially to fund an illegal war based on lies, commit acts of torture and other crimes against humanity and illegal domestic spying on American citizens?

Or we could discuss the ethics and morality of the fact that they further multiplied that burden by abandoning all oversight of their wealthy, corrupt Wall Street overlords and allowed them to crash the entire banking system while they kept their mega-buck salaries, bonuses and golden parachutes.

Yep! The wealthy really needed those tax cuts, and they really helped the majority of American people who are still paying for them and will be for generations. :hmm:

If Republicans had their way, they'd extend those cuts and enact more in a heartbeat. It's still the same irresponsible, dumbass mantra they recite like androids as the "cure" for all fiscal problems. The only good news is, they are at last out of power.

For a guy who claims to be a "Prof," you're pretty bad with numbers and logic.

 

[disappoint]

What he's saying is common sense actually. Public opinion tends to track the economy, and if you don't think they inherited a clusterfuck, you haven't been paying much attention.

Oh yes they have been paying attention, it's just the people they've been paying attention to such as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin who's IQ you could count on one hand even if you carelessly played with a hand grenade and lost all your fingers.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I think Biden has a good point.

The Obama Administration inherited the economy left by Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. They also inherited the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also inherited the health care mess where the cost of insurance was skyrocketing out of control.

 

[werepossum]

I think Biden has a good point.

The Obama Administration inherited the economy left by Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. They also inherited the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also inherited the health care mess where the cost of insurance was skyrocketing out of control.

The last two years were a Democrat-controlled Congress. I know they fight tooth and nail to keep that hidden, but it was in all the papers.

 

[Patranus]

The last two years were a Democrat-controlled Congress. I know they fight tooth and nail to keep that hidden, but it was in all the papers.

But...but...but...BOOOOOSHHHH

 

[Fern]

dp

 

[Fern]

NM, others beat me to it.

 

[her209]

Again, tax cuts do not "cost money". Tax cuts decrease revenue. Revenue was (supposedly) lowered by 2.6 trillion.

If tax cuts cost the government money, that would mean that the government would have kept 100% of your income from taxes and then given you the income back. That isn't how the tax system works.

Say again?

According to trickle down theorists, tax cuts increase revenue, not decrease it.

:biggrin:

 

[Patranus]

Say again?

According to trickle down theorists, tax cuts increase revenue, not decrease it.

:biggrin:

Revenues did increase after the Bush tax cuts. What also increased was spending.

What the graph is trying to say is that Bush tax cuts caused the increase in spending and resulted in an impact on the deficit. That is simply not the case.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The last two years were a Democrat-controlled Congress. I know they fight tooth and nail to keep that hidden, but it was in all the papers.

Sure, but before that it was a Republican-controlled Congress and Presidency that did NOTHING to address or to even acknowledge the problems that led up to all of this. All Bush wanted to do was grant amnesty to the illegals.

Under Bush's watch, the rate of the nation's transformation into a third world country increased dramatically and he did NOTHING to address it nor to even acknowledge the causes.

For the record, I think both the Republicans and Democrats deserve blame for the state of our nation's economy and I want to get rid of both parties. However, I have greater animosity towards the Republicans. As I see it, the Democrats are just stupid. The Republicans know what they're doing and are vicious and also advocate religious dictatorship.

 

[Jhhnn]

Substantial investor class tax cuts will increase govt revenues, but only in the short term. Investors don't have to cash in and pay taxes, but they'll do so when the time is right, and a big taxcut pretty much makes the time right. There's only just so much money in that barrel, however. After the cashing-in, investors now have huge liquidity and are eager to invest in a rising bull market, creating a bubble- which collapses, of course. The smartest and luckiest cash in, again, before that happens, fully cognizant that it will, indeed, happen... and short the hell out of the same stocks they rode up to the top of the bubble...

Market (and voter) manipulation 101, or how to win the 2004 elections... well, gotta throw in some "Ownership Society!" rubbish and a load of "Terrarist Threat!" manure to bring the stink up to the proper level...

Can't figure it out? You're not supposed to, silly...

 

[Patranus]

Sure, but before that it was a Republican-controlled Congress and Presidency that did NOTHING to address or to even acknowledge the problems that led up to all of this. All Bush wanted to do was grant amnesty to the illegals.

Under Bush's watch, the rate of the nation's transformation into a third world country increased dramatically and he did NOTHING to address it nor to even acknowledge the causes.

For the record, I think both the Republicans and Democrats deserve blame for the state of our nation's economy and I want to get rid of both parties. However, I have greater animosity towards the Republicans. As I see it, the Democrats are just stupid. The Republicans know what they're doing and are vicious and also advocate religious dictatorship.

Things were rolling along just fine until 2006, what changed?

 

[Jhhnn]

Things were rolling along just fine until 2006, what changed?

Repubs' great bubble of economic deception popped... fearmongering wrt the Terrarist threat! wore off, and the ownership society turned out to be the loanership society... just a few little things...

 

[werepossum]

Sure, but before that it was a Republican-controlled Congress and Presidency that did NOTHING to address or to even acknowledge the problems that led up to all of this. All Bush wanted to do was grant amnesty to the illegals.

Under Bush's watch, the rate of the nation's transformation into a third world country increased dramatically and he did NOTHING to address it nor to even acknowledge the causes.

For the record, I think both the Republicans and Democrats deserve blame for the state of our nation's economy and I want to get rid of both parties. However, I have greater animosity towards the Republicans. As I see it, the Democrats are just stupid. The Republicans know what they're doing and are vicious and also advocate religious dictatorship.

You and I think much the same but on opposite sides of the spectrum. To paraphrase Matt Stone I hate Republicans, but I really, really hate Democrats. While the Republicans were sailing along fat, dumb and happy, trying to make money and enjoy their families (and the odd male prostitute) the Democrats were taking over the media, Hollywood, and the public education system, to the point that high school students are more likely to attribute the words of Marx to Kennedy, not to mention getting a majority of Americans on the government dole.

And you think the Democrats are the dumb ones?

 

[OrByte]

I think Biden has a good point.

The Obama Administration inherited the economy left by Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. They also inherited the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also inherited the health care mess where the cost of insurance was skyrocketing out of control.

And I think you can go farther than GWB to see exactly why America is tired of Washington DC.

I think any Administration pays for the mistakes of their predecessors. GWB just happened to make alot of mistakes

 

[fantolay]

Obama doesn't even have a birth certificate. Whadda fool.

 

[nobodyknows]

Obama doesn't even have a birth certificate. Whadda fool.

Whadda tool

 

[nobodyknows]

Things were rolling along just fine until 2006, what changed?

People lost faith because of all the lying by GWB and his supporters. How ironic you think you have to ask what happened. You are either being dishonest or a complete fool. In your case I wouldn't doubt that both descriptions apply.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Things were rolling along just fine until 2006, what changed?

The economy had been in the dumps since 2000. The economic malaise was merely masked by the housing bubble.