Sequester Chart of the Day.....

[ReallyMeow]

Real U.S. output in 1947 was 17% higher than in 1941 despite the decline in government spending.
When the U.S. really did try austerity, it worked! | AEIdeas

Spending on what, in particular? You have a severely impaired sense of cause and effect, how you can equate 'no longer needing to exert the entire countries resources into stopping hitler' to cutting social spending is entirely beyond me. a number is smaller and something good happened, so therefore in all contexts of a number being smaller will good things happen?

Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but Ill tell you what, if you really want to play the emulate 1947 game, I will gladly go to 91% on income over a million dollars.

 

[hortysir]

A point that needs repeating every time the word sequester is uttered...AFTER the sequester, the government's budget is still larger than last year.

They're "cutting" their budget increase by 2.4%, immediately after RAISING payroll taxes by 2%.
Obamageddon!!!!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A point that needs repeating every time the word sequester is uttered...AFTER the sequester, the government's budget is still larger than last year.

They're "cutting" their budget increase by 2.4%, immediately after RAISING payroll taxes by 2%.
Obamageddon!!!!!!!

Defense spending will be $500 billion this year.

 

[ReallyMeow]

A point that needs repeating every time the word sequester is uttered...AFTER the sequester, the government's budget is still larger than last year.

They're "cutting" their budget increase by 2.4%, immediately after RAISING payroll taxes by 2%.
Obamageddon!!!!!!!

What do you even want?
Self sufficient govt programs- TADAA! ss is balanced.
A flat tax? TADAA! Thats what it looks like when the rich arnt shouldering the burden for the working class, their rates go way down and everyone elses go way up.

Ill remind you that reagan put the wage tax that high in the first place, and bush only made the reduction temporary. If you're serious about taking the boot off of the throat of small businesses, remove the cap so rich people are paying the same rate as you (they currently pay far, far less)

 

[hortysir]

A point that needs repeating every time the word sequester is uttered...AFTER the sequester, the government's budget is still larger than last year.

They're "cutting" their budget increase by 2.4%, immediately after RAISING payroll taxes by 2%.
Obamageddon!!!!!!!

What do you even want?
Self sufficient govt programs- TADAA! ss is balanced.
A flat tax? TADAA! Thats what it looks like when the rich arnt shouldering the burden for the working class, their rates go way down and everyone elses go way up.

Ill remind you that reagan put the wage tax that high in the first place, and bush only made the reduction temporary. If you're serious about taking the boot off of the throat of small businesses, remove the cap so rich people are paying the same rate as you (they currently pay far, far less)

Punctuation, capitalization and yammering.........

What do I want?
I want people like you to stop with the "sky is falling" bullshit over something that Obama proposed and threatened to veto anything that would stop it when they're not CUTTING anything

 

[ReallyMeow]

No. It doesnt work like that. You want something cut, you say what it is that you want cut, but how much and why its such a good idea.

Exactly which way is it? Have there been no spending cuts, or are we down half a million govt jobs because retaining those people isnt in the budget?

 

[hortysir]

No. It doesnt work like that. You want something cut, you say what it is that you want cut, but how much and why its such a good idea.

Exactly which way is it? Have there been no spending cuts, or are we down half a million govt jobs because retaining those people isnt in the budget?

I want real cuts. Everything across the board.
Line by line analysis to decide how much per item

These aren't spending cuts. They're just not increasing as much as previous years

 

[oldfart]

Real U.S. output in 1947 was 17% higher than in 1941 despite the decline in government spending.
When the U.S. really did try austerity, it worked! | AEIdeas

but Ill tell you what, if you really want to play the emulate 1947 game, I will gladly go to 91% on income over a million dollars.

A little economic history here. Samuelson and company were correct when they made their comments. At that point, the post-war measures were being debated, not in place. The demand which fueled the post-war boom came from three sources:
1. Pent-up consumer demand as a result of rationing and war bond sales. People had lots of money and lots of stuff they wanted to buy.
2. Very generous veteran's programs. Americans sent GI's to college and made really cheap mortgages available sparking the mother of all housing booms.
3. The Marshall Plan was not all generosity; America shipped a large part of its GDP to devestated countries which had no way to pay for it under the old international trade system. This is probably the ultimate vindication of Keynes; read "Economic Consequences of the Peace" (1919).

How many of these programs would have been in place if the Keynesians had not pushed for them? Had we chosen austerity, the return of Depression would have been probable.

 

[Trajan]

Real U.S. output in 1947 was 17% higher than in 1941 despite the decline in government spending.
When the U.S. really did try austerity, it worked! | AEIdeas

Spending on what, in particular? You have a severely impaired sense of cause and effect, how you can equate 'no longer needing to exert the entire countries resources into stopping hitler' to cutting social spending is entirely beyond me. a number is smaller and something good happened, so therefore in all contexts of a number being smaller will good things happen?

Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but Ill tell you what, if you really want to play the emulate 1947 game, I will gladly go to 91% on income over a million dollars.

yes please, I do want to "play the emulate 1947 game".

what you have surfaced is a red herring......( and yea, probably a strawman too).

first of all, a little history;

The Kennedy tax cut was enacted in 1964 (after JFK's assassination), lowering the highest tax rate to 70% from 91%. His prediction that the economy would surge was validated by rapid growth every year from 1965 through 1968. Tax collections grew by 8.6% per year and unemployment fell to 3.4%. "The unusual budget spectacle of sharply rising revenues following the biggest tax cut in history," announced a 1966 U.S. News and World Report article, "is beginning to astonish even those who pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place."

Americans earning over $50,000 per year (the equivalent of about $250,000 today) increased their tax payments by nearly 40% after the rate cut, according to a report from the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. Their share of overall taxes paid rose to almost 15% in 1966 from 12% in 1963. Americans with an income of more than $1 million nearly doubled their tax payments to $603 million in 1965 from $311 million in 1962.

more at-
Stephen Moore: Why Lower Tax Rates Are Good for Everyone - WSJ.com


second-

well, does this really need an explanation?

due to loopholes, deductions etc. even in the era of 90% top rates only 300 people qualified that high MARGINALLY, and they never ever paid an effective rate higher than 50, maybe 55%.

Thats why the AMT was created.

 

[Trajan]

Real U.S. output in 1947 was 17% higher than in 1941 despite the decline in government spending.
When the U.S. really did try austerity, it worked! | AEIdeas

but Ill tell you what, if you really want to play the emulate 1947 game, I will gladly go to 91% on income over a million dollars.

A little economic history here. Samuelson and company were correct when they made their comments. At that point, the post-war measures were being debated, not in place. The demand which fueled the post-war boom came from three sources:
1. Pent-up consumer demand as a result of rationing and war bond sales. People had lots of money and lots of stuff they wanted to buy.
2. Very generous veteran's programs. Americans sent GI's to college and made really cheap mortgages available sparking the mother of all housing booms.
3. The Marshall Plan was not all generosity; America shipped a large part of its GDP to devestated countries which had no way to pay for it under the old international trade system. This is probably the ultimate vindication of Keynes; read "Economic Consequences of the Peace" (1919).

How many of these programs would have been in place if the Keynesians had not pushed for them? Had we chosen austerity, the return of Depression would have been probable.

soooo Samuelson was right, before he was wrong? what the hell?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. It doesnt work like that. You want something cut, you say what it is that you want cut, but how much and why its such a good idea.

Exactly which way is it? Have there been no spending cuts, or are we down half a million govt jobs because retaining those people isnt in the budget?

What do I want cut? Everything.

By how much? Lets start by cutting it back to the level it was in 2000 and then take a look at how much more we need to cut.

Why is it a good idea? Because we were on our way to a balanced budget in 2000.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Real U.S. output in 1947 was 17% higher than in 1941 despite the decline in government spending.
When the U.S. really did try austerity, it worked! | AEIdeas

but Ill tell you what, if you really want to play the emulate 1947 game, I will gladly go to 91% on income over a million dollars.

A little economic history here. Samuelson and company were correct when they made their comments. At that point, the post-war measures were being debated, not in place. The demand which fueled the post-war boom came from three sources:
1. Pent-up consumer demand as a result of rationing and war bond sales. People had lots of money and lots of stuff they wanted to buy.
2. Very generous veteran's programs. Americans sent GI's to college and made really cheap mortgages available sparking the mother of all housing booms.
3. The Marshall Plan was not all generosity; America shipped a large part of its GDP to devestated countries which had no way to pay for it under the old international trade system. This is probably the ultimate vindication of Keynes; read "Economic Consequences of the Peace" (1919).

How many of these programs would have been in place if the Keynesians had not pushed for them? Had we chosen austerity, the return of Depression would have been probable.

Pent up demand because of rationing. The rationing was because the government was diverting almost all of our resources to the war effort, which replaced that demand you seem to think was looking for a way out. You really should stop pretending you ever took an economics class.

 

[oldfart]

soooo Samuelson was right, before he was wrong? what the hell?

Not at all. Economic predictions are made on the basis of the facts and policies in place at the time. Give me a date for a given quote and we can look up the economic situation then. Both the Marshall Plan and the GI bills are circa 1947 in terms of economic effect and the unemployment rate rose from 1.5% or so in 1946 to 4.0--4.5% in 1948 (the current data series from BLS starts in 1948, so figures for 1880--1947 are from Christine Romer's published work).

My point is that there is a huge difference between changing your predictions as conditions change and being inconsistent or wrong. Those who predicted hyperinflation in 2009 are clearly wrong, as the prediction did not happen and there is no good argument that any of the basic facts changed which would account for the discrepancy. Those that predicted that austerity would tank the British economy were correct and those who said the confidence fairy would unleash unprecedented growth were wrong.
Those who predicted the breakup of the Eurozone in 2010 had a good model at the time, the reason it didn't happen was the fundamental change of policy where the European Central Bank reversed policy and started buying sovereign debt starting in 2012.

I won a bet because I predicted in September 2008 that the Dow would bottom out at 6200. It was pure luck; I have no model that predicts stock price so I was using a SWAG. When I predicted at the same time that the unemployment rate would top out at 10.5% I was using a basic econometric model that just turned out to be a better model than the US government's at the time (remember the promise that stimulus would keep the unemployment rate from going over 8%?). I was off a good bit on interest rates and inflation rates, so I had to do some polishing. Deflation was bad, but not the 3--4% I feared.

 

[Trajan]

soooo Samuelson was right, before he was wrong? what the hell?

Not at all. Economic predictions are made on the basis of the facts and policies in place at the time. Give me a date for a given quote and we can look up the economic situation then. Both the Marshall Plan and the GI bills are circa 1947 in terms of economic effect and the unemployment rate rose from 1.5% or so in 1946 to 4.0--4.5% in 1948 (the current data series from BLS starts in 1948, so figures for 1880--1947 are from Christine Romer's published work).

My point is that there is a huge difference between changing your predictions as conditions change and being inconsistent or wrong. Those who predicted hyperinflation in 2009 are clearly wrong, as the prediction did not happen and there is no good argument that any of the basic facts changed which would account for the discrepancy. Those that predicted that austerity would tank the British economy were correct and those who said the confidence fairy would unleash unprecedented growth were wrong.
Those who predicted the breakup of the Eurozone in 2010 had a good model at the time, the reason it didn't happen was the fundamental change of policy where the European Central Bank reversed policy and started buying sovereign debt starting in 2012.

I won a bet because I predicted in September 2008 that the Dow would bottom out at 6200. It was pure luck; I have no model that predicts stock price so I was using a SWAG. When I predicted at the same time that the unemployment rate would top out at 10.5% I was using a basic econometric model that just turned out to be a better model than the US government's at the time (remember the promise that stimulus would keep the unemployment rate from going over 8%?). I was off a good bit on interest rates and inflation rates, so I had to do some polishing. Deflation was bad, but not the 3--4% I feared.

sure and theres a matter of degree and quality of prognostication too, not only was he wrong, ok anyone can be wrong, but he was not even on the same planet. I'd think one would re-think ones work. the keynes school took a hit they never ever recovered from, take a look around....

 

[ReallyMeow]

I want real cuts. Everything across the board.
Line by line analysis to decide how much per item

No, the line by line analysis is what YOU provide. Why would you possibly think that you would persuade anyone by spouting off about things that you want?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCHE1sS4]Veruca Salt - I Want It Now (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) - YouTube[/ame]

1. Pent-up consumer demand as a result of rationing and war bond sales. People had lots of money and lots of stuff they wanted to buy.
2. Very generous veteran's programs. Americans sent GI's to college and made really cheap mortgages available sparking the mother of all housing booms.

What about the pent up demand from working class wages being stagnant for the last 30 years? We have a pretty good gi bill, the jobs market is shit though, peoples good work ethic has shot themselves in the foot big time. "Ill take this job, even though its basically an oath of poverty to do so, because once they see that Im such a hard worker they're sure to give me a raise", said everyone, everywhere, and the raise never came. The nation needs to learn how to strike again.

The Kennedy tax cut was enacted in 1964 (after JFK's assassination), lowering the highest tax rate to 70% from 91%. His prediction that the economy would surge was validated by rapid growth every year from 1965 through 1968. Tax collections grew by 8.6% per year and unemployment fell to 3.4%. "The unusual budget spectacle of sharply rising revenues following the biggest tax cut in history," announced a 1966 U.S. News and World Report article, "is beginning to astonish even those who pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place."

Ok, you've convinced me, I can accept a 70% income tax rate on the top tier of income instead of 91%, as a compromise. Lets not forget reagans great shame in needing to raise taxes half a dozen times to make up for his original handout to the rich.

its not that the burden on the rich increased, the rich got richer as everyone else floundered. They took a bigger slice of the pie and gave the govt a smaller cut of what they took.

By how much? Lets start by cutting it back to the level it was in 2000 and then take a look at how much more we need to cut.
Why is it a good idea? Because we were on our way to a balanced budget in 2000.

We wernt digging ourselves out of a economic trainwreck at the time though, or coming out of a big war. Try the end of WW2 approach- lots of social spending, 91% tax rate on income over todays equivalent of a million dollars.

the keynes school took a hit they never ever recovered from, take a look around....

No, they Keynesian recovery went off without a hitch. tea party congress threw cold water on that with their inane austerity temper tantrum.

 

[hortysir]

I want real cuts. Everything across the board.
Line by line analysis to decide how much per item

No, the line by line analysis is what YOU provide. Why would you possibly think that you would persuade anyone by spouting off about things that you want?

Actually it was my President that told us that he was going to go line-by-line, through the budget, and cut "with a scalpel and not an axe".
Problem is we haven't had a fucking budget since he said that.

 

[Circe]

Actually it was my President that told us that he was going to go line-by-line, through the budget, and cut "with a scalpel and not an axe".
Problem is we haven't had a fucking budget since he said that.

Yes: what about that? Things are getting very weird in Washington. No budget in four years? Is that legal? Is that a government?

 

[ReallyMeow]

I want real cuts. Everything across the board.
Line by line analysis to decide how much per item

No, the line by line analysis is what YOU provide. Why would you possibly think that you would persuade anyone by spouting off about things that you want?

Actually it was my President that told us that he was going to go line-by-line, through the budget, and cut "with a scalpel and not an axe".
Problem is we haven't had a fucking budget since he said that.

Just because republicans have gone "waaaaaa I dont like it" every time obama makes a budget proposal doesnt change the fact that obama has submitted many of them. If you say something doesnt exist, when I can pull it off the top of google in 30 seconds, you get called a liar.

The Budget | The White House

 

[Circe]

Just because republicans have gone "waaaaaa I dont like it" every time obama makes a budget proposal doesnt change the fact that obama has submitted many of them. If you say something doesnt exist, when I can pull it off the top of google in 30 seconds, you get called a liar.

But hopefully not here.

Anyway, governing doesn't involve just putting out some wild-eyed socialist proposal to increase our deficit by borrowing to the point that our economy collapses like Italy and Spain and Greece have.

Governing involves actually getting an agreement, with the people who have more sense than the tax-and-spend party.

 

[ReallyMeow]

their collapse is due to austerity, where they have things they need to do as a government, yet instead choose to not do them, and lay a bunch of people off, exacerbating the recession.

germany and asian nations recovered thanks to govt spending expanding in response to the crisis, the us did too, but only until the tea party came along and threw a wrench in the works.

the tax-and-spend party

Is that supposed to be an insult? Taxing appropriately for the spending you intend to make is called being fiscally responsible, something republicans obviously know nothing about.