Bush TAX Cut Extensions Will Increase Deficit

[Revere]

Add in..most rich people don't play with their own money. The get money from other people..or use funds to take chances. So risk is socialized and profit is privatized.

Who invests and does not participate in profit, only the risk?

Nobody, you inverted his statement.

But if you meant to ask who invests and does not participate in risks, only profits then the easy answer is "those that are too big to fail, and anybody who buys US bonds".

"Too big to fail" is government problem, not a problem of a free market where investment is concerned.

The defect is the expectation, created by government, that it will prevent you from failing.

 

[loosecannon]

Who invests and does not participate in profit, only the risk?

Nobody, you inverted his statement.

But if you meant to ask who invests and does not participate in risks, only profits then the easy answer is "those that are too big to fail, and anybody who buys US bonds".

"Too big to fail" is government problem, not a problem of a free market where investment is concerned.

The defect is the expectation, created by government, that it will prevent you from failing.

iow privatized profits, publicized risks. The very point you seemed eager to contradict.

 

[Toro]

I think the corporate tax code is actually the bigger culprit here rather than individual taxes. Next worse is regulatory burden and our screwed up immigration laws. People who want to insource jobs to the US as entrepreneurs still have to jump through hoops to get in. As long as immigrants pass background checks and physicals why should they have to jump through any other hoops to bring jobs into this country? French MBAs go on a waiting list to get in here to create jobs and I have to ask why? Yeah, I would rather tax stupidity through a national lottery than have an individual income tax but that is priority four for me.

The immigration system is F-ed up. I came here with an MBA and it took me three years to get a Green Card, and I was on the expedited track. Its ridiculous the hoops that someone has to jump through to come to America.

 

[Revere]

Nobody, you inverted his statement.

But if you meant to ask who invests and does not participate in risks, only profits then the easy answer is "those that are too big to fail, and anybody who buys US bonds".

"Too big to fail" is government problem, not a problem of a free market where investment is concerned.

The defect is the expectation, created by government, that it will prevent you from failing.

iow privatized profits, publicized risks. The very point you seemed eager to contradict.

Who?

 

[Revere]

I think the corporate tax code is actually the bigger culprit here rather than individual taxes. Next worse is regulatory burden and our screwed up immigration laws. People who want to insource jobs to the US as entrepreneurs still have to jump through hoops to get in. As long as immigrants pass background checks and physicals why should they have to jump through any other hoops to bring jobs into this country? French MBAs go on a waiting list to get in here to create jobs and I have to ask why? Yeah, I would rather tax stupidity through a national lottery than have an individual income tax but that is priority four for me.

The immigration system is F-ed up. I came here with an MBA and it took me three years to get a Green Card, and I was on the expedited track. Its ridiculous the hoops that someone has to jump through to come to America.

Immigration doesn't need to be convenient for the immigrant. That's not the purpose.

 

[Flopper]

Now I'm not any economist or all that super with high financing. But I seem to recall hearing how those who have the money to make the investments that would lead to job growth aren't investing because they don't know what Obama's policies are going to do to them.

Made sense to me.

One things is for sure. Cutting taxes on the wealthiest people in the country when you running a huge deficit is not going to build confidence in either the business community or our creditors.

 

[loosecannon]

"Too big to fail" is government problem, not a problem of a free market where investment is concerned.

The defect is the expectation, created by government, that it will prevent you from failing.

iow privatized profits, publicized risks. The very point you seemed eager to contradict.

Who?

those who are two big to fail and those who buy US bonds just to toss out what's off the top of my head.

 

[Toro]

I think the corporate tax code is actually the bigger culprit here rather than individual taxes. Next worse is regulatory burden and our screwed up immigration laws. People who want to insource jobs to the US as entrepreneurs still have to jump through hoops to get in. As long as immigrants pass background checks and physicals why should they have to jump through any other hoops to bring jobs into this country? French MBAs go on a waiting list to get in here to create jobs and I have to ask why? Yeah, I would rather tax stupidity through a national lottery than have an individual income tax but that is priority four for me.

The immigration system is F-ed up. I came here with an MBA and it took me three years to get a Green Card, and I was on the expedited track. Its ridiculous the hoops that someone has to jump through to come to America.

Immigration doesn't need to be convenient for the immigrant. That's not the purpose.

Apparently.

But it is nonsensical that in a global economy driven by human capital, a country would make it difficult for highly educated people to come here.

 

[loosecannon]

The immigration system is F-ed up. I came here with an MBA and it took me three years to get a Green Card, and I was on the expedited track. Its ridiculous the hoops that someone has to jump through to come to America.

Immigration doesn't need to be convenient for the immigrant. That's not the purpose.

Apparently.

But it is nonsensical that in a global economy driven by human capital, a country would make it difficult for highly educated people to come here.

citizenship isn't fungible.

 

[Revere]

iow privatized profits, publicized risks. The very point you seemed eager to contradict.

Who?

those who are two big to fail and those who buy US bonds just to toss out what's off the top of my head.

US Bonds are a government problem, especially when they crowd out private investment.

 

[loosecannon]

wudevah. You asked twice, I answered twice......

 

[Toro]

Immigration doesn't need to be convenient for the immigrant. That's not the purpose.

Apparently.

But it is nonsensical that in a global economy driven by human capital, a country would make it difficult for highly educated people to come here.

citizenship isn't fungible.

But capital is.

 

[Sallow]

It wasn't true tho. They are hoarding for the same basic reason that households are hoarding. It helps their bottom line at a time when expansion is a huge gamble.

Cut inventory, cut staff, cut overhead and increase profits. That's what nearly every business in the US is doing. The rest are edging toward insolvency.

The entirety of our economy from the household to the county, state feds is all based on spending tomorrows money today, with the expectation that spending pre emptively will generate non stop growth, which is now required to cover the spending already accounted for.

If the economy doesn't grow under this business plan then the household, county, state, feds end up unable to balance the books because there isn't money to pay for expenses and interest.

Businesses and households are responding rationally by paying down debt, deferring investments and aborting the business practice that caused this calamity in the first place> spending tomorrow's money today.

The counties, states and feds can't do that, so they just borrow and balance budgets with accounting tricks.

If Warren Buffet was president and every business knew exactly what he was gonna do for them businesses still would be hunkering down waiting for a real recovery before they speculate on growth.

Add in..most rich people don't play with their own money. The get money from other people..or use funds to take chances. So risk is socialized and profit is privatized.

Who invests and does not participate in profit, only the risk?

I can't tell whether this is obtuse or just plain stupid.

 

[Revere]

The US admits one million immigrants legally every year. Isn't that enough?

 

[McDowell's]

Add in..most rich people don't play with their own money. The get money from other people..or use funds to take chances. So risk is socialized and profit is privatized.

Who invests and does not participate in profit, only the risk?

I can't tell whether this is obtuse or just plain stupid.

I think what he's trying to ask you is: who specifically provides rich people their capital without requiring a return on that capital?

 

[loosecannon]

Apparently.

But it is nonsensical that in a global economy driven by human capital, a country would make it difficult for highly educated people to come here.

citizenship isn't fungible.

But capital is.

indeed.

 

[loosecannon]

The US admits one million immigrants legally every year. Isn't that enough?

any number is enough. 0-300 million, whatever.

Toro is remarking on the globalization economy in which every country should want to brain drain their nation state rivals. Call it intellectual mercantilism.

If we are gonna adhere to globalization, and I hope we don't, but if we do, he is clearly right. We should seal the borders tight as a drum and apply strict standards for entry. As strict as we can get away with. But stream line admittance for the most qualified.

The number doesn't matter. Israel accepts anybody at all who can attest to Jewish lineage because they want the best brain trust that can be secured.

What might only be a modest advantage now becomes a very significant advantage two gens later.

Opening the borders to anybody who dares cross from a third world nation is a kind of economic suicide.

 

[william the wie]

The US admits one million immigrants legally every year. Isn't that enough?

It depends on whether the immigrant adds net jobs. I would much prefer a Mexican peasant establishing a chain of tortillirias employing 100k American teenagers, students and retirees with one free or half priced meal per day to Toro creating 50 $100k jobs but I definitely want both. No non-criminal immigrant that adds wages particularly on the bottom end of the income range should be turned away. You want to turn away immigrants that simply take American jobs you definitely have my sympathy but to get my vote you need to address a host of issues. The net present value of a post-high school education financed by the state and student loans is negative except for some vo-tech programs. I would much prefer India, China and the EU do the investment in US high tech. I have no idea how much Canada spent educating Toro but since the US is getting the revenue that's free money injected into the US economy and I am a strong believer in taxing the citizens of other countries for my comfort.

"Don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax the guy behind the tree." means taxing non-US citizens. Getting all of the high skill immigrants possible is the easiest way to tax the guy behind the tree. Hold an auction on greencards to make sure that we get all the taxes possible out of the guy behind tree on that one. Add a national online lottery that only accepts non-US URLs while you are at it. Fine those who hire illegals 150% of the latest greencard auction clearing price.

 

[frazzledgear]

This all assumes a static view of the economy which is false. Does anyone know of a projection made by the CBO that came true?

Very true, with the economy continuing to sink it will be worse than predictions.

Wow -first of all the assumption this graph is reliable and accurate is pure bullshit. This hasn't been a reliable source for years now. Clearly this graph was made with heavily filtered data and one of the most glaring omissions is ANY consideration for the known NEGATIVE consequences for raising taxes during a bad economy and high unemployment. This graph assumes there is NONE. At all. As if it would only result in increasing government wealth. Except that ISN'T HOW IT WORKS! Liberals in particular have such a hard time with reality and seem to think if they insist otherwise long enough, eventually reality will come around to be what they want it to be. They don't deal with what reality IS -they deal with what they wish it was. And that mentality has been proven time and again and in many countries to often result in the exact opposite of their stated goals and only increase human misery. But hey, since they always claim to have such "pure and noble" goals, that should count for WAY more than the level of misery they have inflicted on everyone, right?

So with a bad economy and high unemployment and a report out just TODAY showing that Americans suffered a LOSS in income the past year which is a BIG DEAL in case you didn't know that -you liberal bozos think the answer is to hit them up with higher taxes too? Because only NOW are liberals concerned about the deficit? And obviously FAR more concerned about that than the fact 1 in 10 people can't find a job anymore, right? The very same people who insisted government putting this nation into MASSIVELY more debt and sticking generations not even born yet with the bill was fine and dandy with them THEN are now "concerned" about the deficit? No inconsistency that liberals whined about the deficit under Bush -when the increase was in line with the rate Clinton had until Obama pushed him to sign off on the phony stimulus bill even before his Inauguration (and which most members of both parties supported at the time in case you forget) - were dead silent when Democrats continued on after Obama's Inauguration to massively increase the deficit by 25% in just ONE YEAR. AND will result in the US owing more than all the world's existing currency COMBINED in less than ten years. Thanks to DEMOCRATS indulging in their wet dream spending spree. But NOW when its obvious Republicans are going to win the majority in at least the House, NOW they are going to SUDDENLY be concerned about the deficit? Like the rest of us can't see what REALLY changed for you here, right? ROFL Get real. If Democrats are in control of spending it we all know you have no problem with spending until the US is the greatest debtor nation on the planet and we ALL KNOW IT. Because that is EXACTLY what would have happened if Democrats kept control! And it may still since the best we can hope for with a division of power is for obstructionism to just stop Obama and Democrats from continuing on this path at this rate.

Let me point out just a couple of the fallacious assumptions made by the MORONS who made this graph. I shouldn't call them that since they are REQUIRED to make their reports using ONLY the data given to them. They are specifically forbidden to use anything else but that data -so if the data given makes no inclusion for possible unintended or unwanted consequences, their "reports" are going to be BULLSHIT. Which is why they haven't been anywhere close to accurate for a long time now. Politicians figured out how to manipulate the "nonpartisan" group -by selective filtering of the data they are given and required to ONLY use. Even when those making the calculations know vital data is missing, they can't do anything about it and are stuck using ONLY the data given to them. Data that is left out, even if they know for a fact is relevant data -MUST be ignored anyway. Their hands are figuratively tied -by POLITICIANS so they cannot make an accurate prediction -which is why they are usually WAY off the mark. Remember how accurate they were about the impact of Obamacare "saving" money and even decreasing the deficit and lowering the cost of health care? Democrats filtered the information they were given to FORCE the answer they wanted at that time, KNOWING they were manipulating the results and producing a LIE. Not until it was rammed down our throats against our will were they allowed to use the FULL information and then OOPS. Turns out their first report was the exact opposite of reality! What a shocker, huh? Wow no one saw that coming. Only AFTER it was a done deal and the odds against the ability of WE THE PEOPLE to get it rescinded can people be told the TRUTH -that Obamacare will (and already has) make health care MORE expensive and at an even FASTER rate than without it, will INCREASE the deficit and for kickers -will result in the loss of another 800,000 jobs over ten years in the process. Just like those wicked, bad, evil Republicans kept insisting all along. Probably because Republicans have the critical thinking skills to figure out the lessons of history -and liberals don't.

If they are predicting the deficit will increase even more unless taxes are raised, it means the information they were given was again heavily filtered for the specific purpose of getting back a specific desired "answer". It means they included the fact your elected MORONIC Congressional representatives spent money the government didn't have before and still doesn't have. Its like complaining to your boss that you were counting on a raise this year and had already spent it all -so now that you didn't get it, you have to borrow money to cover the additional money you spent that you never had in the first place and still don't. The amount of money you got never changed. What changed was YOUR spending habits. And THAT is what has changed here. Our government went HOG WILD OUT OF CONTROL with spending money it didn't have in the first place -and still doesn't. Tax cuts didn't cause the deficit in the first place -OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING DID! Your elected representatives are worse than teenagers with daddy's credit card -but now want to be rewarded for it by not just getting re-elected for the shit screw job they just did on us all (which just boggles my mind frankly), but telling you to STFU and how you should be HAPPY and just overflowing with all that warm, gooey "patriotic" feelings you would naturally want to just pony up to pay for their out of control spending spree. STUPID Democrats refuse to believe that raising taxes will result in even less government revenue -but history has proven this to be true so many times you have to be a ******* moron not to know it. We are already (and have been) above that point where raising taxes will increase revenues without negatively impacting the economy and employment rates. That means any tax hike WILL result in higher unemployment and that means fewer people working and that means fewer people even paying federal income taxes and that means LESS government revenue. Not more.

THIS is why they all need to be thrown out of office -they go hog wild irresponsible spending money they never had in the first place and still don't while people were screaming at them to STOP and then insist it isn't their spending they need to get under control -but how much MORE they can try to confiscate from the half who even pay federal income taxes? Hey if you don't pay federal income taxes anyway then the fact they were spending nonexistent taxpayer money wouldn't bother you much at all, would it? While of course they ALWAYS run for election by insisting the half being parasited upon still haven't opened their veins wide enough for the other half to better suck them dry.

This graph is pure BULLSHIT. What will REALLY happen if taxes are raised -and if these tax cuts are allowed to expire, it IS a tax hike -is it will result in HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT. Raising taxes ALWAYS raises unemployment because we are already above the rate where it would not and any further tax hikes will raise taxes on small businesses too. Those businesses existing on the margin will go under -taking all the jobs with it. That means FEWER people even paying federal income taxes than before which more than offsets the additional money produced by the higher rate -and TADA -government ends up with LESS revenue than without the tax hike. It is compounded by the fact it results in businesses not only not hiring, but they pass on the tax hikes to consumers so that everything we buy costs more at the same time unemployment is high -which hurts REAL PEOPLE, not imaginary ones. And that isn't even taking into account the negative impact it has on decreasing the rate at which new businesses are even created -which means a more enduring unemployment. Kind of like we already have now -you lose your job now, and your odds of finding another at all much less one close to equal value is way down. And any business that does international business has been put at a greater disadvantage, making it more difficult for them to compete and increases their odds of shrinking and shedding jobs - and eventually going under if it lasts long enough.

THAT is historical FACT -and the fact they came up with this bullshit bogus graph showing the opposite is PROOF positive they were working with heavily filtered data that did not include some of the most important and relevant data. Raising taxes, especially in a bad economy -produces higher revenues for a brief period only -then revenues take a nosedive as unemployment goes higher. And in a bad economy where unemployment is already high, raising taxes can and has resulted in throwing the economy into a recession or turning a recession into a depression. Do you REALLY need to see that happen again before you can come to grips with the reality of tax hikes and its effects on the economy and employment? There really is a reason unemployment most of Bush's 8 years was around 5% even though he was handed a recession - and why in spite of Obama claiming a spending spree would mean it wouldn't get above 8% unemployment is now stuck at around 10% with no end in sight.

Bush had an education AND experience seeing firsthand what does and does not work in creating a successful business. Obama is a ******* LAWYER who never held a real job in his life and neither has anyone in his administration. When it comes to talking about the economy, business and WHO CREATES JOBS -never forget, its the lawyers who are FAKING IT. Obama is a fake who relied upon an economic theory that was already an historically PROVEN FAILURE. But since he is a leftwing extremist, it happens to be one he thinks would be real nice if it were reality. See paragraph one about reality and liberals.

 

[antagon]

Now I'm not any economist or all that super with high financing. But I seem to recall hearing how those who have the money to make the investments that would lead to job growth aren't investing because they don't know what Obama's policies are going to do to them.

Made sense to me.

It wasn't true tho. They are hoarding for the same basic reason that households are hoarding. It helps their bottom line at a time when expansion is a huge gamble.

Cut inventory, cut staff, cut overhead and increase profits. That's what nearly every business in the US is doing. The rest are edging toward insolvency.

not all businesses are the same, but i claim none of the above from my personal perspective. to SFC Ollie, i dont think about 2012 when hiring for today's needs. i believe that a business which considers labor decisions that far in advance is setting themselves up for disaster and are incompetent. that is my biggest criticism of the relationship forced between UAW and the big US makers. they have an estimate of how many 2015 corvettes they plan to make and have locked in a contract with their labor. what you have heard is a political device which someone hoped would appeal to people who dont run businesses themselves.

to cannon, what you contend sits a bit closer to home except that i'd say the hoarding phase is at the approach to the peak of the economic cycle. i think that the market is full of keen business people who do indeed anticipate an end to prosperous ROI and hunker down as i had prior to the shit hitting the fan. this means that rather than hiring a bunch of new guys in the 3 quarters leading up to the anticipated bust, i had extended overtime and done what i could to take profit while it was out there. what seems inaccurate about calling the current period a profit-taking time is that the profits per-cent and overall are lower for me and many other business owners. now is a time of riding out lower returns on investment and taking advantage of devalued assets and capital floating around the market. the reason why labor is not a good buy is because the demand is not there and an underutilized force makes you want to lay some guys off for a while rather than hire any more.

i could care less about obama when it comes to these sorts of things, and rather than hoarding, it is a matter of hibernation for many businesses. exploitation for those with the balls and the dosh to take advantage.