Boehner Agrees To Trade Tax Rate Hikes For Entitlement Savings. Obama Says, Thanks Fo

[eflatminor]

Revenues depend on two things: tax rates and the state of the economy. If the economy is depressed, the revenues are low.

Correct, if the economy is depressed, revenues go down. That's the point. History shows us (in America, in states, and in other countries) that there is a causal relationship between raising tax rates and a slowing of economic growth and therefore, tax revenues.

No, not at all. Sometimes other factors depress the economy around the time when taxes are raised, but there is no casual relationship.

Dr Laffer would disagree but let's say you're right. Why all these instances of raising taxes/lower revenues and lower taxes/higher revenues? Coincidence? Well, I don't believe in coincidences.

We are in a depression, and that is important. Particularly, that is the reason we still have big deficits.

Not according to the government. Obama says we're not even in a recession anymore. You guys need to get on the same page!

Of course it does. Bush and then Clinton raised taxes, and this led to a balanced budget once the economy recovered.

Nope, when Bush I increased tax rates, revenue fell. Same for Clinton, until he lowered the capital gains tax rate in 1994. THEN tax revenue increased. It also helped that Clinton embraced many free market initiatives and signed welfare reform. I'll grant you that.

You can't grow the economy faster that productivity growth times population growth. Tax level has little to do with either. But if they are too low to cover the necessary spending, you will have deficits even when economy is booming (like after Bush tax cuts).

If you increase productivity you can. Guess what that takes? Investment! Capital! Risk taking to start new ventures, new competitors, and more efficient ways of doing business. Average earners don't fund those ventures, rich guys do.

Everyone who has savings is a source of capital. Whether it will be few gazilionairs or millions of middle class families, the result is the same.

Nope. That's not how capital markets work. Middle class families keep savings in a bank. It's not banks that fund new entrants into a market, it's venture capitalists...rich guys.

You can choose to overlook the numerous instances in which raising taxes resulted in less tax revenue. You can choose to overlook the many times in which lowering tax rates resulted in more tax revenue. Either way, you cannot state with certainty that raising taxes will help solve our SPENDING PROBLEM.

 

[ilia25]

Correct, if the economy is depressed, revenues go down. That's the point. History shows us (in America, in states, and in other countries) that there is a causal relationship between raising tax rates and a slowing of economic growth and therefore, tax revenues.

No, not at all. Sometimes other factors depress the economy around the time when taxes are raised, but there is no casual relationship.

Dr Laffer would disagree but let's say you're right. Why all these instances of raising taxes/lower revenues and lower taxes/higher revenues? Coincidence? Well, I don't believe in coincidences.

It does not have to be coincidence. For example, a depressed economy creates deficits, and to fight them people increase taxes. In this case there is a casual relationship, but it runs the other way around.

We are in a depression, and that is important. Particularly, that is the reason we still have big deficits.

Not according to the government. Obama says we're not even in a recession anymore. You guys need to get on the same page!

The government does not use the word "depression" for some unclear reason, but it is right about recession -- the economy is growing since 2009. We are, however still in a depression, which means the economy is working below potential -- lot of unemployed, a lot of idle production capacity.

The US economy was growing wast in 1933, but depression was not over for many more years.

You can't grow the economy faster that productivity growth times population growth. Tax level has little to do with either. But if they are too low to cover the necessary spending, you will have deficits even when economy is booming (like after Bush tax cuts).

If you increase productivity you can. Guess what that takes? Investment! Capital! Risk taking to start new ventures

Nope. The productivity growth is defined by the advances in science and technology. And you cannot make twice more discoveries and new inventions simply by spending twice more.

The market economy never lacks money to invest. The government can print the stuff, or lower the rates to stimulate the investments, so lack of dollars is never a problem.

Average earners don't fund those ventures, rich guys do.

Average earners put those money in investment banks and funds, and those invest in new ventures.

Everyone who has savings is a source of capital. Whether it will be few gazilionairs or millions of middle class families, the result is the same.

Nope. That's not how capital markets work. Middle class families keep savings in a bank. It's not banks that fund new entrants into a market, it's venture capitalists...rich guys.

That is not true, see above.

Either way, you cannot state with certainty that raising taxes will help solve our SPENDING PROBLEM.

I can state with certainty that we do not have a spending problem, and I know that rising taxes increases revenue. I showed you one study, I can show you more, if you care.

 

[WillowTree]

No, not at all. Sometimes other factors depress the economy around the time when taxes are raised, but there is no casual relationship.

Dr Laffer would disagree but let's say you're right. Why all these instances of raising taxes/lower revenues and lower taxes/higher revenues? Coincidence? Well, I don't believe in coincidences.

It does not have to be coincidence. For example, a depressed economy creates deficits, and to fight them people increase taxes. In this case there is a casual relationship, but it runs the other way around.




The government does not use the word "depression" for some unclear reason, but it is right about recession -- the economy is growing since 2009. We are, however still in a depression, which means the economy is working below potential -- lot of unemployed, a lot of idle production capacity.

The US economy was growing wast in 1933, but depression was not over for many more years.



Nope. The productivity growth is defined by the advances in science and technology. And you cannot make twice more discoveries and new inventions simply by spending twice more.

The market economy never lacks money to invest. The government can print the stuff, or lower the rates to stimulate the investments, so lack of dollars is never a problem.



Average earners put those money in investment banks and funds, and those invest in new ventures.

Nope. That's not how capital markets work. Middle class families keep savings in a bank. It's not banks that fund new entrants into a market, it's venture capitalists...rich guys.

That is not true, see above.

Either way, you cannot state with certainty that raising taxes will help solve our SPENDING PROBLEM.

I can state with certainty that we do not have a spending problem, and I know that rising taxes increases revenue. I showed you one study, I can show you more, if you care.[/QUOTE]

Dumb as a box of rocks. We spend 1.4 trillion more than we take in. If we didn't have a spending problem we wouldn't be running deficits.

 

[eflatminor]

No, not at all. Sometimes other factors depress the economy around the time when taxes are raised, but there is no casual relationship.

Dr Laffer would disagree but let's say you're right. Why all these instances of raising taxes/lower revenues and lower taxes/higher revenues? Coincidence? Well, I don't believe in coincidences.

It does not have to be coincidence. For example, a depressed economy creates deficits, and to fight them people increase taxes. In this case there is a casual relationship, but it runs the other way around.




The government does not use the word "depression" for some unclear reason, but it is right about recession -- the economy is growing since 2009. We are, however still in a depression, which means the economy is working below potential -- lot of unemployed, a lot of idle production capacity.

The US economy was growing wast in 1933, but depression was not over for many more years.



Nope. The productivity growth is defined by the advances in science and technology. And you cannot make twice more discoveries and new inventions simply by spending twice more.

The market economy never lacks money to invest. The government can print the stuff, or lower the rates to stimulate the investments, so lack of dollars is never a problem.



Average earners put those money in investment banks and funds, and those invest in new ventures.

Nope. That's not how capital markets work. Middle class families keep savings in a bank. It's not banks that fund new entrants into a market, it's venture capitalists...rich guys.

That is not true, see above.

Either way, you cannot state with certainty that raising taxes will help solve our SPENDING PROBLEM.

I can state with certainty that we do not have a spending problem, and I know that rising taxes increases revenue. I showed you one study, I can show you more, if you care.

Bottom line, I disagree with everything you've stated. So does Dr Laffer. And having first hand experience with venture capitalism, I can say you are WAY off as to how it works. The banks most people have a saving account in do NOT invest in new ventures or anything remotely risky. They prefer to give loans secured with property or, unfortunately, government backing. You have much to learn about how capital markets work.

We don't have a spending problem? $16.3 trillion of debt and we don't spend enough? There is nothing more to say other than you are out of your frickin' mind...as are all hard core Keynesians.

Anyway, there is no need to engage with you further. You clearly have an agenda that you're not willing wavier on. That's fine, it's your right. You just happen to be wrong.

All the best.

 

[ilia25]

Dr Laffer would disagree but let's say you're right. Why all these instances of raising taxes/lower revenues and lower taxes/higher revenues? Coincidence? Well, I don't believe in coincidences.

It does not have to be coincidence. For example, a depressed economy creates deficits, and to fight them people increase taxes. In this case there is a casual relationship, but it runs the other way around.




The government does not use the word "depression" for some unclear reason, but it is right about recession -- the economy is growing since 2009. We are, however still in a depression, which means the economy is working below potential -- lot of unemployed, a lot of idle production capacity.

The US economy was growing wast in 1933, but depression was not over for many more years.



Nope. The productivity growth is defined by the advances in science and technology. And you cannot make twice more discoveries and new inventions simply by spending twice more.

The market economy never lacks money to invest. The government can print the stuff, or lower the rates to stimulate the investments, so lack of dollars is never a problem.



Average earners put those money in investment banks and funds, and those invest in new ventures.



That is not true, see above.

Either way, you cannot state with certainty that raising taxes will help solve our SPENDING PROBLEM.

I can state with certainty that we do not have a spending problem, and I know that rising taxes increases revenue. I showed you one study, I can show you more, if you care.

Bottom line, I disagree with everything you've stated. So does Dr Laffer.

No, he doesn't. Laffer curve states that increasing taxes beyond some point is counterproductive. But you have no reason to think that we have reached that point.

And having first hand experience with venture capitalism, I can say you are WAY off as to how it works. The banks most people have a saving account in do NOT invest in new ventures or anything remotely risky.

Most people do not keep their savings in saving accounts. They hold them in investment funds.

We don't have a spending problem? $16.3 trillion of debt and we don't spend enough?

We are in debt because we do not collect enough of tax revenue.

You just happen to be wrong.

All the best.

I showed you the numbers and studies showing that I am right. You never argued with those, you just keep repeating that it is spending problem like a clockwork muppet. Grow up.

 

[freedombecki]

With this compromise the GOP has infact shown good faith in trying to deal with the problem. If the media is honest they will have to report it and it would bode well going into next year when we do go over the cliff.
It can't be reported just as the GOP obstructionists.
People DO want the rich to pay more, but they also want less spending, so the ball may very well be in Obama's court.

Hear, hear!

I hope America works together and creates opportunities for a balanced budget and for Obama to realize he can still do as he promised before if he has the courage to back himself up. I hope he at least tries a little harder:

[ame=http://youtu.be/SaQUU2ZL6D8]Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009 - YouTube[/ame]
​

 

[Zoom]

Report: Boehner Agrees To Trade Tax Rate Hikes For Entitlement Savings. Obama Says, Thanks For The Tax Hikes But I'll Pass On The Savings


—DrewM.

I know it's crazy but maybe, just maybe this big spending, statist really isn't interested in dealing with our spending problems. Shocking, I know.

President Barack Obama is not ready to accept a new offer from the Republican leader of the U.S. the House of Representatives to raise taxes on top earners in exchange for major cuts in entitlement programs, a source said late Saturday.
The shape and details of Boehner's offer were uncertain Saturday night, as was the exact reason the president was prepared to reject it.

The source said Obama sees the offer made on Friday by U.S. House Speaker John Boehner as a sign of progress, but simply believes it is not enough and there is much more to be worked out before Obama can reciprocate.

Tax rates and entitlements are the two most difficult issues in the so-far unproductive negotiations to avert the "fiscal cliff" of steep tax hikes and spending cuts set for the new year unless Congress and the president reach a deal to avoid them.​

I don't get why the GOP is negotiating in good faith. Obama isn't. He wants nothing short of absolute surrender. Either give it to him (Let It Burn) or change the terms of the debate drastically.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
www.ace.mu.nu

Tax the rich or cut my grandmothers medicare. Fuck you.

 

[ilia25]

At 16+ trillion in debt...which all of that was once deficit....I'm not seeing your rationalization.

For the third time today, look at the NUMBERS (not the author name):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/opinion/krugman-that-terrible-trillion.html?hp



Also they speak German in Germany, and in the US people mostly speak English. What all this has to do with deficits?

And you just want to talk about Germany and Sweden?

I wanted to know what do you find so terrible about European countries and what that has to do with dangers of large government spending.

I read it, it's actual spinning reality. There are a lot of if's and based on if the economy turns around.

Can you be more specific? What "ifs" are you talking about?

I listed a lot of european countries that aren't doing well, care to expound on them, or do you want to stick with Germany and Sweden?

You have linked government spending with some bad things happened in Europe. There is no such link.

 

[tooAlive]

We are in debt because we do not collect enough of tax revenue.

Of course that's what you believe; because for the role you want government to play, it needs much more revenue than what it's currently bringing in.

That's more along the lines of communism.

We don't want that.

 

[ilia25]

Dumb as a box of rocks. We spend 1.4 trillion more than we take in. If we didn't have a spending problem we wouldn't be running deficits.

We would not be running deficits if not for the low tax revenues. Asshole.

 

[tooAlive]

Dumb as a box of rocks. We spend 1.4 trillion more than we take in. If we didn't have a spending problem we wouldn't be running deficits.

We would not be running deficits if not for the low tax revenues. Asshole.

We wouldn't be running deficits if the government didn't spend more than it was taking in.

That's not right-wing propaganda, that's common sense.

 

[ilia25]

We are in debt because we do not collect enough of tax revenue.

Of course that's what you believe; because for the role you want government to play, it needs much more revenue than what it's currently bringing in.

That's more along the lines of communism.

We don't want that.

I am sorry, but you are a cretin. Do you realize that even if the government stops spending on everything except national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Secuirity we would still be running deficits?

Do you really believe that spending on DOD or Medicare constitutes communism, and you don't want that?

If you think we have spending problem, can you answer a simple question -- what government program is unnecessary and can be eliminated? Or what else the government can do to save -- where are those billions in wasteful spending the right-wingers keep lying about?

That, BTW, is the question that Obama and democrats keep asking Republicans -- but they won't answer.

 

[ilia25]

Dumb as a box of rocks. We spend 1.4 trillion more than we take in. If we didn't have a spending problem we wouldn't be running deficits.

We would not be running deficits if not for the low tax revenues. Asshole.

We wouldn't be running deficits if the government didn't spend more than it was taking in.

That's not right-wing propaganda, that's common sense.

We would not be running deficits if the government was taking enough tax revenue to cover its costs.

Again, if you think this is spending problem -- tell us how the government can spend less. Should they lay off soldiers? Stop sending Social Security checks? How else then?

 

[tooAlive]

We are in debt because we do not collect enough of tax revenue.

Of course that's what you believe; because for the role you want government to play, it needs much more revenue than what it's currently bringing in.

That's more along the lines of communism.

We don't want that.

I am sorry, but you are a cretin. Do you realize that even if the government stops spending on everything except national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Secuirity we would still be running deficits?

Do you really believe that spending on DOD or Medicare constitutes communism, and you don't want that?

If you think we have spending problem, can you answer a simple question -- what government program is unnecessary and can be eliminated? Or what else the government can do to save -- where are those billions in wasteful spending the right-wingers keep lying about?

That, BTW, is the question that Obama and democrats keep asking Republicans -- but they won't answer.

We need to restructure medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare programs and cut military spending.

Those are the major contributors to our deficit and we can't balance the budget unless they're addressed.

 

[tooAlive]

We would not be running deficits if not for the low tax revenues. Asshole.

We wouldn't be running deficits if the government didn't spend more than it was taking in.

That's not right-wing propaganda, that's common sense.

We would not be running deficits if the government was taking enough tax revenue to cover its costs.

Again, if you think this is spending problem -- tell us how the government can spend less. Should they lay off soldiers? Stop sending Social Security checks? How else then?

[ame=http://youtu.be/asRDOhgN70Q]What Can We Cut to Balance the Budget - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ilia25]

Of course that's what you believe; because for the role you want government to play, it needs much more revenue than what it's currently bringing in.

That's more along the lines of communism.

We don't want that.

I am sorry, but you are a cretin. Do you realize that even if the government stops spending on everything except national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Secuirity we would still be running deficits?

Do you really believe that spending on DOD or Medicare constitutes communism, and you don't want that?

If you think we have spending problem, can you answer a simple question -- what government program is unnecessary and can be eliminated? Or what else the government can do to save -- where are those billions in wasteful spending the right-wingers keep lying about?

That, BTW, is the question that Obama and democrats keep asking Republicans -- but they won't answer.

We need to restructure medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare programs and cut military spending.

Restructure how?

You don't have an answer to that and neither has the guy in that YouTube clip. Yet you still keep repeating, like a broken gramophone, that the government spends way too much.

The guy in YouTube gives a hint -- rethink the role of government he says, by which he means, as anyone can easily guess, what all other right-wingers dream of, although most are afraid to admit. They want to dismantle all social programs, period.

They -- and you, my friend -- think that the government has no business caring for our elderly and disabled, or, God forbid, helping the low income earners with food and basic necessities.

And anyone who disagrees with you on that is a communist, pure and simple.

 

[eflatminor]

It does not have to be coincidence. For example, a depressed economy creates deficits, and to fight them people increase taxes. In this case there is a casual relationship, but it runs the other way around.




The government does not use the word "depression" for some unclear reason, but it is right about recession -- the economy is growing since 2009. We are, however still in a depression, which means the economy is working below potential -- lot of unemployed, a lot of idle production capacity.

The US economy was growing wast in 1933, but depression was not over for many more years.



Nope. The productivity growth is defined by the advances in science and technology. And you cannot make twice more discoveries and new inventions simply by spending twice more.

The market economy never lacks money to invest. The government can print the stuff, or lower the rates to stimulate the investments, so lack of dollars is never a problem.



Average earners put those money in investment banks and funds, and those invest in new ventures.



That is not true, see above.



I can state with certainty that we do not have a spending problem, and I know that rising taxes increases revenue. I showed you one study, I can show you more, if you care.

Bottom line, I disagree with everything you've stated. So does Dr Laffer.

No, he doesn't. Laffer curve states that increasing taxes beyond some point is counterproductive. But you have no reason to think that we have reached that point.




Most people do not keep their savings in saving accounts. They hold them in investment funds.

We don't have a spending problem? $16.3 trillion of debt and we don't spend enough?

We are in debt because we do not collect enough of tax revenue.

You just happen to be wrong.

All the best.

I showed you the numbers and studies showing that I am right. You never argued with those, you just keep repeating that it is spending problem like a clockwork muppet. Grow up.

You believe that.

Merry Christmas.

 

[ilia25]

as are all hard core Keynesians.

That is, of course, an obvious rhetorical trick -- putting a label on your opponent. Except in your case it not a communist, but Keynesian.

Well guess what -- I am not offended. Keynesian theory passed the test that the current crisis was with flying colors. It made two simple, if very unorthodox predictions. As long as the economy remains depressed:
1) Trillions of freshly printed dollars will not result in rising inflation.
2) Trillions the government borrows every year will not result in rising borrowing costs.

Both predictions turned out to be true. No other model comes close explaining these two facts. That is why right-wing talking heads keep crying about treat of inflation and rising rates any day now -- for the past 3 years. Some investors have lost lots of money listening to them.

But the reality can't shake the right-winger's faith. It it could, he'd become a Keynesian.


BTW, speaking of the horrible things that taxing the rich will do to investments -- do you know why we still have low inflation and low government borrowing costs? Because the economy is flooded with idle capital that can't find any investment opportunities. This is not a supply problem.

You believe that.

Merry Christmas.

This is not question of faith. It is about whether you have a model that can explain what happens in the real world.

I do, and you don't.

Merry Christmas to you.

 

[eflatminor]

Both predictions turned out to be true.

Until they turn out to be not true. History didn't start with the progressive era.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

You may be willing to fuck those yet to be born with the debt of your largess. I am not.

And a merry new year!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You bozo.

Tell us about how commercial and investment banking went incestuous from 1998 to 2007, and then what happened.

You liars.

Dr Laffer would disagree but let's say you're right. Why all these instances of raising taxes/lower revenues and lower taxes/higher revenues? Coincidence? Well, I don't believe in coincidences.

It does not have to be coincidence. For example, a depressed economy creates deficits, and to fight them people increase taxes. In this case there is a casual relationship, but it runs the other way around.




The government does not use the word "depression" for some unclear reason, but it is right about recession -- the economy is growing since 2009. We are, however still in a depression, which means the economy is working below potential -- lot of unemployed, a lot of idle production capacity.

The US economy was growing wast in 1933, but depression was not over for many more years.



Nope. The productivity growth is defined by the advances in science and technology. And you cannot make twice more discoveries and new inventions simply by spending twice more.

The market economy never lacks money to invest. The government can print the stuff, or lower the rates to stimulate the investments, so lack of dollars is never a problem.



Average earners put those money in investment banks and funds, and those invest in new ventures.



That is not true, see above.

Either way, you cannot state with certainty that raising taxes will help solve our SPENDING PROBLEM.

I can state with certainty that we do not have a spending problem, and I know that rising taxes increases revenue. I showed you one study, I can show you more, if you care.

Bottom line, I disagree with everything you've stated. So does Dr Laffer. And having first hand experience with venture capitalism, I can say you are WAY off as to how it works. The banks most people have a saving account in do NOT invest in new ventures or anything remotely risky. They prefer to give loans secured with property or, unfortunately, government backing. You have much to learn about how capital markets work.

We don't have a spending problem? $16.3 trillion of debt and we don't spend enough? There is nothing more to say other than you are out of your frickin' mind...as are all hard core Keynesians.

Anyway, there is no need to engage with you further. You clearly have an agenda that you're not willing wavier on. That's fine, it's your right. You just happen to be wrong.

All the best.