Krugman nails it!

[taichiliberal]

Ok, so you half answered - current rate but fewer deductions. How much will that raise?

Okay, I gave an answer...not "half" one. And I didn't state that I knew exactly what numbers were needed, since I'm not an economist....and neither are you. I'm just going by common sense with the information available to the average tax payer:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2990222-post30.html

So you think Krugman "nails it" but have no idea how much it will raise? That's not much of a place to start for a solution.

So when I answered your question, you then ask me for numbers beyond what was supplied by Krugman and the other links provided here. The numbers given provide what amounts would be available to the national coffers. I'll go with that as a starter....unlike the neocon blowhards who fabricate any and all types of "should be" scenarios as if they are concrete facts on all accounts. Posts #17 and #30.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Stimulus is the economic equivalent of Global Warming, the only place it ever works is in a computer model

Spoken like an 8th grader, Frank. Why don't you discuss the issue with some mature rationality instead of spewing childish teabagging blather? But I suspect that you're more interested in having the last word with half-baked accusations and parroted neocon rhetoric. So be it.

I think I pretty much nailed it and especially liked the parallelism between Krugmans Failed Stimulus and the failed Pseudoscience of Man-made Global Warming.

Yeah. I was dealt Aces full, so I'm gonna stand pat here.

 

[taichiliberal]

The Stimulus is the economic equivalent of Global Warming, the only place it ever works is in a computer model

Spoken like an 8th grader, Frank. Why don't you discuss the issue with some mature rationality instead of spewing childish teabagging blather? But I suspect that you're more interested in having the last word with half-baked accusations and parroted neocon rhetoric. So be it.

The stimulus failed

And what was Krugman saying?

Also, there's this:

STIMULUS WATCH: Unemployment Unchanged by Projects - ABC News

 

[asterism]

Okay, I gave an answer...not "half" one. And I didn't state that I knew exactly what numbers were needed, since I'm not an economist....and neither are you. I'm just going by common sense with the information available to the average tax payer:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2990222-post30.html

So you think Krugman "nails it" but have no idea how much it will raise? That's not much of a place to start for a solution.

So when I answered your question, you then ask me for numbers beyond what was supplied by Krugman and the other links provided here. The numbers given provide what amounts would be available to the national coffers. I'll go with that as a starter....unlike the neocon blowhards who fabricate any and all types of "should be" scenarios as if they are concrete facts on all accounts. Posts #17 and #30.

That's as much of a non-answer as Krugman provides.

He sure "nailed it!"

 

[taichiliberal]

So you think Krugman "nails it" but have no idea how much it will raise? That's not much of a place to start for a solution.

So when I answered your question, you then ask me for numbers beyond what was supplied by Krugman and the other links provided here. The numbers given provide what amounts would be available to the national coffers. I'll go with that as a starter....unlike the neocon blowhards who fabricate any and all types of "should be" scenarios as if they are concrete facts on all accounts. Posts #17 and #30.

That's as much of a non-answer as Krugman provides.

He sure "nailed it!"

Translation: YOU don't have an "answer" to your own question, yet YOU cannot refute/disprove the information given or the critic by Krugman. In short, you're full of it.

Krugman is merely pointing out the errors of the commissions preliminary statements, and that how those on the commission are not conducive to actually solving the problem with the proposals given their backgrounds.


.....Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases — tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans — the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest — and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.

It will take time to crunch the numbers here, but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans. And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?

Let’s turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that’s what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?

The answer is no, for a number of reasons — including the point that working until you’re 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.

But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it’s doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html

 

[asterism]

So when I answered your question, you then ask me for numbers beyond what was supplied by Krugman and the other links provided here. The numbers given provide what amounts would be available to the national coffers. I'll go with that as a starter....unlike the neocon blowhards who fabricate any and all types of "should be" scenarios as if they are concrete facts on all accounts. Posts #17 and #30.

That's as much of a non-answer as Krugman provides.

He sure "nailed it!"

Translation: YOU don't have an "answer" to your own question, yet YOU cannot refute/disprove the information given or the critic by Krugman. In short, you're full of it.

Krugman is merely pointing out the errors of the commissions preliminary statements, and that how those on the commission are not conducive to actually solving the problem with the proposals given their backgrounds.


.....Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases — tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans — the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest — and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.

It will take time to crunch the numbers here, but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans. And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?

Let’s turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that’s what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?

The answer is no, for a number of reasons — including the point that working until you’re 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.

But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it’s doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html

Do keep up, I've posted the plan I prefer and how much it will raise.

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

 

[taichiliberal]

That's as much of a non-answer as Krugman provides.

He sure "nailed it!"

Translation: YOU don't have an "answer" to your own question, yet YOU cannot refute/disprove the information given or the critic by Krugman. In short, you're full of it.

Krugman is merely pointing out the errors of the commissions preliminary statements, and that how those on the commission are not conducive to actually solving the problem with the proposals given their backgrounds.


.....Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases — tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans — the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest — and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.

It will take time to crunch the numbers here, but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans. And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?

Let’s turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that’s what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?

The answer is no, for a number of reasons — including the point that working until you’re 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.

But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it’s doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html

Do keep up, I've posted the plan I prefer and how much it will raise.

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

Fair Tax? That old chestnut?

Yeah, I remember that....more suckers buying into yet another version of Reaganomics....pity for you it was debunked awhile back. Do keep up, as FactCheck.org took the winds out of this sail in 2007 (fortunately, that article is still up):

Unspinning the FairTax

FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax