Dean Claims Tax Cuts Hurt The Economy?

[XZeroII]

?I opposed the Bush tax cuts because they are bad for the economy, and they are costing us jobs,? Dean says.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002607.asp?0dm=C1CNN

Wow. I'd like to see how he manages to back that one up. Dean has 100% lost my vote, spinning obvious lies in order to smear Bush.

 

[Strk]

Well, I'd say the ones on passive income do hurt the economy since those who live off of it have more than enough to pay for it. However, I would keep the ones that benefit the middle-class, which Dean should be for considering the quote at the end of the article.

?Some of my opponents are saying, ?Oh, Dean wants to get rid of the middle-class tax cut.? How much did your property tax go up in the last three years? How much did your kids? college tuition go up? There was no such thing as a middle-class tax cut.?

 

[miguel]

Hmmm, I wonder how much more the middle-class would be paying for property taxes, college tuition, etc, without the tax cut....

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, I'd say the ones on passive income do hurt the economy since those who live off of it have more than enough to pay for it. However, I would keep the ones that benefit the middle-class, which Dean should be for considering the quote at the end of the article.

?Some of my opponents are saying, ?Oh, Dean wants to get rid of the middle-class tax cut.? How much did your property tax go up in the last three years? How much did your kids? college tuition go up? There was no such thing as a middle-class tax cut.?

That doesn't hurt the economy. Hurting the economy means it causes GDP to go down. Costing jobs means people lose their jobs. I can't think of a single time in history when a tax cut had that effect.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, I'd say the ones on passive income do hurt the economy since those who live off of it have more than enough to pay for it. However, I would keep the ones that benefit the middle-class, which Dean should be for considering the quote at the end of the article.

?Some of my opponents are saying, ?Oh, Dean wants to get rid of the middle-class tax cut.? How much did your property tax go up in the last three years? How much did your kids? college tuition go up? There was no such thing as a middle-class tax cut.?

That doesn't hurt the economy. Hurting the economy means it causes GDP to go down. Costing jobs means people lose their jobs. I can't think of a single time in history when a tax cut had that effect.

Increasing the deficit does not help the economy

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, I'd say the ones on passive income do hurt the economy since those who live off of it have more than enough to pay for it. However, I would keep the ones that benefit the middle-class, which Dean should be for considering the quote at the end of the article.

?Some of my opponents are saying, ?Oh, Dean wants to get rid of the middle-class tax cut.? How much did your property tax go up in the last three years? How much did your kids? college tuition go up? There was no such thing as a middle-class tax cut.?

That doesn't hurt the economy. Hurting the economy means it causes GDP to go down. Costing jobs means people lose their jobs. I can't think of a single time in history when a tax cut had that effect.

It may seem like Bush's deficits are simulating the economy, but down the road one of two things will happen because of the out of control deficits:
1. Inflation - the GDP growth will be next to nothing when adjusted for inflation.
2. Higher interest rates - the GDP growth will be next to nothing because of high cost of borrowing.
You can take your pick, but with the dollar in freefall overseas, it's only a matter of time before it catches up to us in the US. There is no such thing as free lunch, learn it, live it.
Dean is just telling it to you how it is. Bush is telling you how he wishes it was. It's rightwinger's wet dream that you can indefinitely run huge deficits with no negative side effects. But reality is very different, which will be obvious soon enough, the only question is before the election or after.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, I'd say the ones on passive income do hurt the economy since those who live off of it have more than enough to pay for it. However, I would keep the ones that benefit the middle-class, which Dean should be for considering the quote at the end of the article.

?Some of my opponents are saying, ?Oh, Dean wants to get rid of the middle-class tax cut.? How much did your property tax go up in the last three years? How much did your kids? college tuition go up? There was no such thing as a middle-class tax cut.?

That doesn't hurt the economy. Hurting the economy means it causes GDP to go down. Costing jobs means people lose their jobs. I can't think of a single time in history when a tax cut had that effect.

Increasing the deficit does not help the economy

The deficit has nothing to do with the economy. If he was talking about the deficit, he would have said the deficit instead of the economy.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The economy must be viewed from a short- and long-term perspective. Bush (and the Congress) have piled up long term debt and are operating with deficits that look pretty damn structural. Bushies insist that deficit-spending was unavoidable AND it will drive the American economy forwards for years to come. The problem with that logic is that military spending, healthcare spending, and education spending (state/local) are NOT going to decrease any time soon. Which means the federal government will continue it's "event horizon" style borrowing which will affect long term interest rates not to mention the costs of servicing the ever growing national debt. And state/local government will continue to raise taxes . . . since they don't have the luxury (or lack of discipline) to pile up debt for the next three generations to pay off.

 

[rjain]

Inflation might seem like a problem until you consider the recent phenomenal gains in productivity. But we have to see if they are sustainable. Even then, at a third of that level, salaries would double every generation without any significant inflation.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Inflation might seem like a problem until you consider the recent phenomenal gains in productivity. But we have to see if they are sustainable. Even then, at a third of that level, salaries would double every generation without any significant inflation.

It may be deflationary pressures in the economy that keep inflation abated. The gains in productivity are likely largely due to people being compelled to do more work for less pay. If you fire half your staff but decrease output by only 25% you have dramatically increased productivity. Salary pressure will be low b/c every retained employee knows they could be next.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, I'd say the ones on passive income do hurt the economy since those who live off of it have more than enough to pay for it. However, I would keep the ones that benefit the middle-class, which Dean should be for considering the quote at the end of the article.

?Some of my opponents are saying, ?Oh, Dean wants to get rid of the middle-class tax cut.? How much did your property tax go up in the last three years? How much did your kids? college tuition go up? There was no such thing as a middle-class tax cut.?

That doesn't hurt the economy. Hurting the economy means it causes GDP to go down. Costing jobs means people lose their jobs. I can't think of a single time in history when a tax cut had that effect.

It may seem like Bush's deficits are simulating the economy, but down the road one of two things will happen because of the out of control deficits:
1. Inflation - the GDP growth will be next to nothing when adjusted for inflation.

Inflation has been kept under control by advanced nations for 20 years and counting. It is highly doubtful that it will come back to haunt us, bar any catastrophic event. Our main worry now is deflation

2. Higher interest rates - the GDP growth will be next to nothing because of high cost of borrowing.
That is a built-in stabilizer. Should interest rates go up, the dollar will go down. That will lead to less import and a boon for our exports. Besides, unless Bush increases the deficit at the rate seen in 2002, and unless he turns a blind eye to the mounting deficit, only then would it really hurt us. I doubt that's going to happen. One reason is that the economy is picking up.

You can take your pick, but with the dollar in freefall overseas, it's only a matter of time before it catches up to us in the US. There is no such thing as free lunch, learn it, live it.
Dean is just telling it to you how it is. Bush is telling you how he wishes it was. It's rightwinger's wet dream that you can indefinitely run huge deficits with no negative side effects. But reality is very different, which will be obvious soon enough, the only question is before the election or after.

The dollar freefall is mainly against the Euro. Unfortunately the asian countries continue to peg their currency to ours. In turn, the fall is hurting the Europeans more than anyone else, including the US. Dean will tell you anything so long as it is opposite of Bush

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, I'd say the ones on passive income do hurt the economy since those who live off of it have more than enough to pay for it. However, I would keep the ones that benefit the middle-class, which Dean should be for considering the quote at the end of the article.

?Some of my opponents are saying, ?Oh, Dean wants to get rid of the middle-class tax cut.? How much did your property tax go up in the last three years? How much did your kids? college tuition go up? There was no such thing as a middle-class tax cut.?

That doesn't hurt the economy. Hurting the economy means it causes GDP to go down. Costing jobs means people lose their jobs. I can't think of a single time in history when a tax cut had that effect.

It may seem like Bush's deficits are simulating the economy, but down the road one of two things will happen because of the out of control deficits:
1. Inflation - the GDP growth will be next to nothing when adjusted for inflation.

Inflation has been kept under control by advanced nations for 20 years and counting. It is highly doubtful that it will come back to haunt us, bar any catastrophic event. Our main worry now is deflation

>>Really, I wouldn't think so by the price of gold and record lows of Dollar vs Euro.

2. Higher interest rates - the GDP growth will be next to nothing because of high cost of borrowing.
That is a built-in stabilizer. Should interest rates go up, the dollar will go down. That will lead to less import and a boon for our exports. Besides, unless Bush increases the deficit at the rate seen in 2002, and unless he turns a blind eye to the mounting deficit, only then would it really hurt us. I doubt that's going to happen. One reason is that the economy is picking up.
>>Interest rates go up, dollar goes up, not down That's why fed controls interest rates, they hike interest rates to keep inflation at bay. Deficit will go up past 2002, with Iraq war, and will be at $500b. Bush so far has turned a blind eye to mounting deficit, growing the government and cutting taxes at the same time. You have reason to believe that will change?

You can take your pick, but with the dollar in freefall overseas, it's only a matter of time before it catches up to us in the US. There is no such thing as free lunch, learn it, live it.
Dean is just telling it to you how it is. Bush is telling you how he wishes it was. It's rightwinger's wet dream that you can indefinitely run huge deficits with no negative side effects. But reality is very different, which will be obvious soon enough, the only question is before the election or after.

The dollar freefall is mainly against the Euro. Unfortunately the asian countries continue to peg their currency to ours. In turn, the fall is hurting the Europeans more than anyone else, including the US. Dean will tell you anything so long as it is opposite of Bush

Dollar is in freefall against any currency not artificially pegged to the dollar. It's in freefall against gold too. If Bush is telling you that we can run 500B deficits, have low taxes and high government spending at the same time, and Dean is saying the opposite, I don't have a problem with that. I would rather hear the truth.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It may be deflationary pressures in the economy that keep inflation abated. The gains in productivity are likely largely due to people being compelled to do more work for less pay. If you fire half your staff but decrease output by only 25% you have dramatically increased productivity. Salary pressure will be low b/c every retained employee knows they could be next.

Yep. Another mitigating factor could be that people are told to work extra hours from home and not put them on their timesheets, hiding the reasons even more. But the fact that companies have gotten amazingly lean with the use of technology and outsourcing to move the less productive jobs out of our workforce is probably the biggest factor. Unfortunately, outsourcing doesn't necessarily increase global productivity, just our productivity.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Dollar is in freefall against any currency not artificially pegged to the dollar. It's in freefall against gold too. If Bush is telling you that we can run 500B deficits, have low taxes and high government spending at the same time, and Dean is saying the opposite, I don't have a problem with that. I would rather hear the truth.

Then I guess it's a good thing that Bush isn't saying that. Let's make a little analogy. If McDonalds charged $10 a meal, do you think they'd make more profit than if they charged $5 a meal? Is the fact that they're charging less per meal an indication that they have to make less profit? If Bush's advisors are in any way competent, they're just doing the long-term aspect of the tax cuts for show to increase optimism, anyway.

 

[rjain]

Dari: currently the dollar is dropping supposedly because of the low interest rates... This discourages foreign investment in US Treasuries in favor of higher-yielding bonds from other countries.

 

[sandorski]

I think Bush is on the right track. Perhaps AT Homeowners should take his example and stimulate the economy even more! To do this, they can take a Mortgage out on their homes, then spread the money around to family and friends. We'll all grow rich together!

Seriously though, the Tax Cuts are based on a Projected budgetary Surplus that ceased to exist before the first cuts came into being. IOW, the Budget Deficit is caused, for the most part, on paying out for the Tax Cuts. It was not 9/11, the Recession, Iraq War/reconstruction, or some other unforeseen increase in spending that caused the Deficit, though they certainly add to the problem. It will be interesting to see how long the current GDP growth rate will continue using the Borrow and Spread method of stimulation, especially with Baby Boom retirees about to happen in the next 5ish years or so.

 

[rjain]

Actually, if there's going to be economic growth soon, it's even more important that the government borrow now, while they can do so cheaply.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

?I opposed the Bush tax cuts because they are bad for the economy, and they are costing us jobs,? Dean says.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002607.asp?0dm=C1CNN

Wow. I'd like to see how he manages to back that one up. Dean has 100% lost my vote, spinning obvious lies in order to smear Bush.

This is great. The Bush supporters in here getting as fired up in hating Dean as they hate me. Woo hoo

Now I'm really sure Dean will win

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XZeroII

?I opposed the Bush tax cuts because they are bad for the economy, and they are costing us jobs,? Dean says.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002607.asp?0dm=C1CNN

Wow. I'd like to see how he manages to back that one up. Dean has 100% lost my vote, spinning obvious lies in order to smear Bush.

This is great. The Bush supporters in here getting as fired up in hating Dean as they hate me. Woo hoo

Now I'm really sure Dean will win

rofl

I wonder how many other "I'll never vote Democrat" types will now say, "Dean has 100% lost my vote"? Entertaining to say the least.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XZeroII

?I opposed the Bush tax cuts because they are bad for the economy, and they are costing us jobs,? Dean says.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002607.asp?0dm=C1CNN

Wow. I'd like to see how he manages to back that one up. Dean has 100% lost my vote, spinning obvious lies in order to smear Bush.

This is great. The Bush supporters in here getting as fired up in hating Dean as they hate me. Woo hoo

Now I'm really sure Dean will win

rofl

I wonder how many other "I'll never vote Democrat" types will now say, "Dean has 100% lost my vote"? Entertaining to say the least.

Yes - currently I'm one of those "I'm not going to vote for a democrat" types. But that is because Bush is a better pick than anyone they are offering. Now that isn't to say that if some nutjob offed Bush and we were stuck with Cheney I would still feel that way. In that scenario it'd be likely that I'd possibly vote for a Democrat...but it'd be a tough choice if it were between Cheney and Dean. Likewise with the insertion of an extremist like Buchanon - it'd be a toss up. So what I'm saying is - that while none of these democrats will get my vote - the situation could dramatically change and it could become possible that I would vote for one. Dean wouldn't be in my top 3 though

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XZeroII

?I opposed the Bush tax cuts because they are bad for the economy, and they are costing us jobs,? Dean says.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002607.asp?0dm=C1CNN

Wow. I'd like to see how he manages to back that one up. Dean has 100% lost my vote, spinning obvious lies in order to smear Bush.

This is great. The Bush supporters in here getting as fired up in hating Dean as they hate me. Woo hoo

Now I'm really sure Dean will win

rofl

I wonder how many other "I'll never vote Democrat" types will now say, "Dean has 100% lost my vote"? Entertaining to say the least.

It's hysterical, I didn't think I'd see such desperation 11 months out.

 

[Wolfdog]

In a way he is right, but he should have been more direct and used less rumsfeld speak. The tax cuts are part of the "feel good" way of stimulating the economy. Sure they help on a very short term basis. What happens when everyone has spend any extra monies that they received? That same exact money will have to be paid back three fold, since money isn't free, and we aren't exactly running in a balanced budget. All Bush did is run up a tab on the Bank of US credit card. Putting all the "the tax cut was mostly for the wealthy" debate aside he just signed in a 396 billion medicare package this morning. When you add it into the spot we are already in, where do you think all the money is going to come from? We will end up paying it one way or another, in some form or the sort. If they cut education, then we have to pay that money in increased taxes elsewhere. The federal cuts are coming, like the state closing down half a dozen of the DMV offices here locally. Making for longer lines and more of a pain to go to the DMV. While this is not a federal program by any means, the cuts are coming. The money has to come from somewhere, and people will really feel it when there is major job loss at the federal level. It won't be the politicians either that get laid off. So we end up right back where we started from. A whole lot of people out of work, with a weary job market.

 

[Gravity]

I wonder if he can use the "f" word like Kerry?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gravity
I wonder if he can use the "f" word like Kerry?

You mean John F'n Kerry

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Dollar is in freefall against any currency not artificially pegged to the dollar. It's in freefall against gold too. If Bush is telling you that we can run 500B deficits, have low taxes and high government spending at the same time, and Dean is saying the opposite, I don't have a problem with that. I would rather hear the truth.

Then I guess it's a good thing that Bush isn't saying that. Let's make a little analogy. If McDonalds charged $10 a meal, do you think they'd make more profit than if they charged $5 a meal? Is the fact that they're charging less per meal an indication that they have to make less profit? If Bush's advisors are in any way competent, they're just doing the long-term aspect of the tax cuts for show to increase optimism, anyway.

If Mcdonalds had a meal that cost them $10 and charged $5 they would lose more money than if they charged $10. So yes, charging less for government than the cost of operating it is an indication that we will be running deficits.
But then again I am only an Electrical Engineering major, so I am not as good at Math as the GOP. It is entirely possible that your GOP lawmaker is applying higher modulo and ring mathematical theories where 5-10 is indeed 5 (modulo 10).