The Reality Behind The Tea Parties
Tweet
A columnist in the Macon Telegraph writes:
The Clinton years saw the deficit morph into a $128 billion surplus. No tea parties. No dancing in the streets. No waving of signs and rejoicing that our children’s futures were secure. That’s a good thing because the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency that surplus turned into a $133 billion deficit. We hadn’t seen nuthin’ yet.
Last September the deficit had ballooned to more than $10 trillion. In eight years, no tea parties; hardly a mumbling word until the bailouts began last September. No one complained that a lame duck president, who kept war spending off the books — just like Wall Street accountants fiddled with their derivative Ponzi schemes — had royally screwed up.
So here we are. Folks are upset. Why now? The answer is simple. The people twirling tea bags and making signs and creating a big fuss — inspired by talk radio mavens — are really mad because they lost the November elections — and they lost to Barack Obama.
They feel disenfranchised and abandoned by the Republican Party who they swore their allegiances to. Much of that anger should be redirected. After all they didn’t pitch a fit when they saw the Republican Party train wreck. They didn’t march down the street and wave signs when a Republican-controlled Congress and president broke the bank and threw the ideal of small government out the window. Their silence is one of the reasons the reins of government now sit in the hands of Democrats.
Unfortunately, for those who wish differently, the enthusiasm of the Tea Parties of ’09 will quickly fade. Did you see the crowds? What did they look like? They reminded me of the attendees at the Republican National Convention last year, where minorities made up a whopping 1.5 percent of the delegates. Don’t they get it? America no longer looks like that.
99 Responses to “The Reality Behind The Tea Parties”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Or, you know, it could be this.
But it was probably this:
Hmm. I wonder if I should bother clicking the link to Instapundit SaveFarris provided? Hmmm…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/51_view_tea_parties_favorably_political_class_strongly_disagrees
Funny how the wingnuts never link to the CBO graph showing the huge amount of American job losses under Bush.
Oliver — your picture illustrates why Democrats no longer care about the deficit.
The logic these people follow is mind-numbing:
Spending over a trillion on a war with a country that posed no threat to us is OK because they believe that American lives are worth being saved. It’s down-right patriotic.
Spending over a trillion to fix a failed health care system that will wind up paying for itself in the long run by way of lowered costs, lowered incidence of disease and saved American lives through affordable coverage with an emphasis on preventative care is socialist.
Now put it all through the “Fuck you, I’ve got mine” prism, it all makes perfect sense. It’s still mind-numbing. But, at least it makes sense. Only their American lives are worth being saved. Everyone else is SOL.
Who says Democrats don’t care about the deficit? Perhaps they do care about deficits, but find other more pressing issues at hand which may increase the foreseeable deficit. Obama and other prominent Democrats have said as much. What they did not say was, “Deficits don’t matter.” A really stupid and evil motherfucker preached that.
And no Democrat ever worried about “paying of the debt too fast.” Did you know that in 2000, the national debt was on track to be completely erased by 2009? I wonder what happened in the meantime….
Who says Democrats don’t care about the deficit?
Their actions say they don’t care, unless we are going to redefine terms in which voting for $500+ billion deficits for the next 10 years counts as fiscal conservatism.
In which case George W. Bush was a brilliant steward of the treasury.
Socialist, Marxist and Communist are the new code words for black. Obama’s giving tax cuts to the middle class and taxing the wealthy less than Nixon and Eisenhower did
Spending over a trillion to fix a failed health care system that will wind up paying for itself in the long run by way of lowered costs, lowered incidence of disease and saved American lives through affordable coverage with an emphasis on preventative care is socialist.
You’re confusing stated goals with results. The War on Poverty would indicate that we shouldn’t confuse the two. Or Paul Wolfowitz’s proclamation that the Iraq War would pay for itself.
And really, the government bringing new efficiencies and lowered costs? The government? The same people that have a hard time managing the DoD — a core government function — without widespread fraud and abuse will provide great management of health care? Does that make any sense?
Nice graph, Farris. You know the ’09 number belongs to Mr. Bush, don’t you?
As for the Macon column OW linked: Never trust a writer who can’t keep the deficit and the national debt straight.
Gotta love this from the never reliable Rasmussen poll
.
2* Do you personally know anyone who attended a tea party protest?
Just to throw this out there, what political party did the only President in the last like 40 years that fixed the deficit belong to?
QIAB: Nice graph, Farris. You know the ‘09 number belongs to Mr. Bush, don’t you?
Hahahahaha!!!!… (deep breath… bwwaaaaaahahahaha!
Eat it, Farris.
Question I’d like to see on the Rasmussen Poll:
Do you personally know anyone who will be affected by the tax increase on people making more than $250K AGI?
Well, do ya, punk?
Nice graph, Farris. You know the ‘09 number belongs to Mr. Bush, don’t you?
You do know that the ’09 number includes the Obama stimulus, don’t you?
Just to throw this out there, what political party did the only President in the last like 40 years that fixed the deficit belong to?
Good point. Let’s vote the GOP back into power in the House and Senate and return spending levels to that of 15 years ago. Works for me.
In any case it is incoherent how Obama and Clinton can pursue opposite spending policies and yet you support both. This indicates that it is the party, rather than policies, that you support.
Do you personally know anyone who will be affected by the tax increase on people making more than $250K AGI?
That’s right — the teabaggers are just that principled and selfless.
In any case the logic behind your statement, that people shouldn’t care because it’s the other guy that’s being forced to foot the bill, is reprehensible.
Socialist, Marxist and Communist are the new code words for black
And now I know how the Japanese must felt at the end of WWII when they found out the US had broken their code years ago.
In any case, my GOP decoder — for which I had to mail away 10 Kool-aid UPC symbols — says that other code words are “taxes”, “spending” and “deficits.”
Before the election I said that charges of “RACISM!” regarding criticism of Barack Obama would the order of the day for at least four years were he to win. Looks like I was right. Nothing like a good dose of intellectual laziness to start the week.
Also, “But President Bush!” is not a valid rebuttal for criticism regarding Obama’s reckless spending plans. First of all, the accusation that conservatives sat around not caring about the asinine spending during the Bush administration is a big fat lie. Some of Bush’s toughest critics were conservatives and libertarians but they couldn’t be heard over the shrieks of “WAR FOR OIL!” Second of all, just because somebody “shouldn’t be talking about spending when they supported Bush” doesn’t mean they are wrong. But I clearly expect a bunch of chest thumping, “But it’s about the hypocrisy!” retorts which is also lazy.
Did you know that in 2000, the national debt was on track to be completely erased by 2009?
No, it wasn’t. In fact, the “Clinton surplus” is one if the biggest myths ever accepted by a gullible public and reported by a moronic media. There was no surplus. You cannot have a surplus if the national debt is still going up (and the national debt went up every year while Clinton was President). When you understand the relationship between the public debt and intergovernmental holdings you’ll understand why.
In any case it is incoherent how Obama and Clinton can pursue opposite spending policies and yet you support both. This indicates that it is the party, rather than policies, that you support.
Indeed. How could this not be the only possible conlcusion we can reach? Afterall, the situation in which Obama finds himself in now is exactly like the situation Clinton found himself in.
Who doesn’t remember the economic collapse of the 1990s? And I we will never forget the on-going wars in those two countries we invaded, that time when Clinton was President.
Yup. Only a hack with a political ax to grind could ever reach a different conclusion than you, Colin.
…and yet your responses still don’t refute the articles point. Conservatives-You can’t have it both ways. If your butts were in the streets throughout Bush and Obama, then you would at least be consistent, but the point is not about the deficit. Its about this sect of societies virulent hatred of the president. I for one respect these tea party folks if they came out and labeled themselves far right fringe.
Who doesn’t remember the economic collapse of the 1990s?
Do you know where the expression “It’s the economy, stupid!” comes from?
And I we will never forget the on-going wars in those two countries we invaded, that time when Clinton was President.
Which is why all of Obama’s increase spending is going to Afghanistan and Iraq? Right.
But I’m the one guilty of political hackery.
“Who says Democrats don’t care about the deficit?”
Colin: “Their actions say they don’t care, unless we are going to redefine terms in which voting for $500+ billion deficits for the next 10 years counts as fiscal conservatism.”
How do you suggest fixing the economy without deficit spending?
“In which case George W. Bush was a brilliant steward of the treasury.”
George Bush fucks up the economy, but you blame Obama for doing what it takes to get it back on track.
Brilliant.
In any case the logic behind your statement, that people shouldn’t care because it’s the other guy that’s being forced to foot the bill, is reprehensible.
Is it? Seems to me that used to be the bulwark of the conservative platform. what happened to personal responsibility?
Although I’m sure Mr. Soros and Mr. Trump thank you for fighting on their behalf.
Jay: “There was no surplus.”
I wonder if he’s right. Hmm. Hmmmm…
How do you suggest fixing the economy without deficit spending?
That’s a question based only on the assumption that the only the government can “fix” the economy.
How do you suggest fixing the economy without deficit spending?
Governments don’t fix economies. Economies fix themselves. Bad companies die, good companies take their place. Your mistake is your premise.
Remember how government spending led to the boom of the 90s? Me neither.
The government, however, can do some good by getting out of the way. President Carter deregulated the trucking and airline industries (led by Ted Kennedy in the Senate, go look it up) and those two industries boomed afterwards.
George Bush fucks up the economy, but you blame Obama for doing what it takes to get it back on track.
Brilliant.
Obama, a candidate who promised a “net spending cut” and ran on a platform of change is taking Bush’s excessive spending and doubling down. A crisis that began with excessive borrowing and spending is being solved by…excessive borrowing and spending.
Brilliant.
Is it? Seems to me that used to be the bulwark of the conservative platform. what happened to personal responsibility?
Seems to me you have no understanding of free market economics.
Although I’m sure Mr. Soros and Mr. Trump thank you for fighting on their behalf.
Seems to me you have no understanding of Mr. Soros’s politics.
That’s a question based only on the assumption that the only the government can “fix” the economy.
Yes; that’s what Hoover said.
The fact is, I have not met a Republican (as opposed to an Independent who used to be a Republican) in the past five years that had any understanding of return on investment. Clearly none of the trolls here understand it.
This is why the (true) fiscal conservatives have all left the Republican party.
Remember how government spending led to the boom of the 90s? Me neither.
The boom of the 50s, however…
Look, we can’t rely on the Wall Streeters who got us into this mess to get us out. We got out of the last recession because it was bad but limited to the web bubble. This one hit our homes, thanks to deregulation.
Seems to me you have no understanding of Mr. Soros’s politics.
Seems to me you have no understanding of Mr. Soros’s personal wealth.
Oh, and Mr. Soros is staunchly pro-democracy for some weird reason. I know, it’s Ripley’s.
QIAB: Nice graph, Farris. You know the ‘09 number belongs to Mr. Bush, don’t you?
Ordinarily, it would. But this year, the circumstances are different. Ever hear of continuing resolutions?
That’s a question based only on the assumption that the only the government can “fix” the economy.
Translation: I got no idea.
Seems to me you have no understanding of Mr. Soros’s politics.
What the fuck difference does that make? You guys are shouting to preserve his tax advantages. His “politics” has nothing to do with it.
President Carter deregulated the trucking and airline industries (led by Ted Kennedy in the Senate, go look it up) and those two industries boomed afterwards.
Did anyone else feel that? I think the Earth just shifted on it’s axis a little.
Do you know where the expression “It’s the economy, stupid!” comes from?
Jesus, Colin. Do you? Can you tell us what year and in what context that phrase made its debut?
Which is why all of Obama’s increase spending is going to Afghanistan and Iraq? Right.
Uh, Colin. At least Obama is including the cost of the wars in his actually budgets and not trying to keep them “off the books” as did Bush.
At the same time, let’s walk this back a little.
Do you really believe that if one supported Clinton’s economic policies it’s hypocritical to now support Obama’s?
The only way you could make that stick is if Clinton and Obama were responding to a similar set of circumstances.
Do you really want to insist that the economic situation of the 1990s is in any way comparable to our current situation?
Innumerate Enron accountants like “Colin” betray the profound mix of ignorance and deceit the right wing con artists have been suckering the right wing with for 30 years.
Republican Ronald Reagan more than DOUBLED the US debt.
No teabaggers said a word, and to this day claim he’s the real conservative.
Between Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush I they more than QUADRUPLED the US debt.
Not a peep from the right.
Democratic President Clinton actually paid down the debt and even left his incoming replacement a SURPLUS.
And for eight years the right screamed like petulant infants, over what? True fiscal responsibility?
Republican President Bush II nearly doubled the US debt, with the bills still coming due, even leaving the incoming President with a deficit of $1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS.
Again, not a peep from the right for EIGHT YEARS.
And before the three month mark of the Democratic President who inherited the Republican’s 30 year legacy of debt, suddenly the right wing are screaming like cranky infants again.
Colin, either you can’t do math, don’t know history (or both), or you are just an unprincipled liar.
Considering you’ve been spouting falsehoods since you showed up, and seem curiously immune to facts for a seemingly educated person, I’ll have to assume that you are an unprincipled liar, Colin.
Do you use the same type of Enron math with your friends, family, and business associates, Colin, that you are using here?
Perhaps they all need to watch their wallet around you.
And why don’t you explain, again, how American’s dying at greater rates than most of the industrialized world, both babies and grandparents, is a good thing in your sick ideology.
It’s always informative when right wingers expose themselves like you are doing here.
“How do you suggest fixing the economy without deficit spending? ”
First of all, government can only do two things regarding the economy:
1) Take money from those that earned it, and give it to those that didn’t.
2) Allow those that earned the money to use it as they see fit.
In general, it’s a balance of the two concepts, but every individual action government takes boils down to one or the other. There is an ethical and a practical element to deciding which is the right away to go. Being pretty libertarian, I find #1 clearly unethical and wish people who consider it necessary would at least see and admit that inherent issue.
Beyond that, it seems intuitive to me that those who have proven themselves at building wealth should be allowed, and encouraged, to continue, since building wealth is really what drives the economy as a whole.
Government destroys wealth, practically by definition. I don’t understand how people can expect a different result over and over. Every large expansion of government has triggered or worsened economic slowdowns, not the other way around. FDR, LBJ, Carter, yes Bush, and now Obama, all oversaw big increases in spending, and the economic damage caught up to all of them (except Obama, for whom instead it continues to slow down).
Plainly and simply, government will *never* spend money as well as private citizenry. The more it spends in hopes of improving the economy (spending for the sake of spending), rather than as an intended expense (to buy something it actually needs, for example), the more damage it will do to the economy.
and the national debt went up every year while Clinton was President
This is weird:
Remember kids, when Jay says, “there was no surplus” or “the debt went up every year under Clinton” or “Al Gore said he invented the Internet” or “Iraq so totally does too have nucular weapons and worked with Al-Queda” or “I never said that Iraq was an imminent threat” or pretty much anything else, the opposite is true.
And lookee here.
Buzz, nice post. Spot on.
And when people assign a motive to fiscal conservatives such as us and attack that instead of the actual point, it shows that they have no real argument of their own. It’s weak and shows a lack of intelligence. This can be seen in the second comment on this thread.
Many of us griped about Bush’s spending for years. I just never though that Obama, a man that promised to CUT spending, would actually SPEND so much that it makes the previous admin’s irresponsibility look like a drop in the bucket. It’s truly unacceptable. And the responsible citizens of this nation are beginning to rise up against the fiscal irresponsibility that’s gone on in DC for far too long now.
The tea parties are just the beginning. We are going to take this country back.
the economic damage caught up to all of them (except Obama,
And FDR, but never mind that!
The boom of the 50s, however…
What about it?
http://voteview.com/images/Federal_Budget_1940-2006.jpg
Look, we can’t rely on the Wall Streeters who got us into this mess to get us out.
Your following Obama’s tried and true tactic of arguing with things people never said. The people that should get us out of this mess are all of us. People participating in the economy and making individual decisions to improve their lot will get us out, not this government-led spending bonanza.
We got out of the last recession because it was bad but limited to the web bubble. This one hit our homes, thanks to deregulation.
Ah, deregulation, the bugaboo of the left. You do realize that the rating agencies that said all the subprime CDOs were AAA rated were all government licensed and regulated right? So therefore nothing bad should have happened, right?
Many of us griped about Bush’s spending for years.
Cite please. Put up or shut up. “Cuz I call shenanigans.
Me: “How do you suggest fixing the economy without deficit spending?”
Jay: “That’s a question based only on the assumption that the only the government can ‘fix’ the economy.”
So how does the non-government fix the economy.
Jesus, Colin. Do you? Can you tell us what year and in what context that phrase made its debut?
1992, when Clinton assured everyone that we were in the midst of the worst economy, like, ever.
When Clinton took office in January 1993 the unemployment rate was 7.3%. When Obama took office it was 7.6%.
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
Which is why Clinton proposed an economic stimulus package his first year in office:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/22/us/gop-senators-prevail-sinking-clinton-s-economic-stimulus-bill.html
Thankfully that was mostly shot down. Clinton also tried health care nationalization, which is also firmly on the Obama agenda.
So I will concede that I am being a bit unfair. From 93-95 Clinton was fairly liberal and similar to where Obama is now. From 95 onwards — the majority of his tenure — he scaled government back a bit via welfare reform and even cut capital gains taxes, which is at extreme odds with Obama’s approach. This, however, is the Clinton that most people remember and associate his name with.
Thanks for that substance-free adolescent wank, Buzz. Um, could you maybe provide a scintilla of evidence to support your worldview. Because when you write “Plainly and simply…” without any backup, you sound like some crank on Hyde Corner. Or some [high school] sophomore who just read Ayn Rand. If government is really so horrible, you would have moved to Somalia years ago.
Me: “How do you suggest fixing the economy without deficit spending?”
Colin: “Governments don’t fix economies. Economies fix themselves. Bad companies die, good companies take their place. Your mistake is your premise.”
Yes. The Herbert Hover school of economic recovery. We all know how well that worked out.
Serious question… What is your training in economics?
First of all, government can only do two things regarding the economy:
1) Take money from those that earned it, and give it to those that didn’t.
2) Allow those that earned the money to use it as they see fit.
Buzz, if you want to characterize something such as highway construction as “taking money from those that earned it and giving it to those that didn’t” please at least see and admit that this is hackery of the highest order.
That would be much appreciated.
CSS: Serious question… What is your training in economics?
I’m curious. What is yours?
Me: “How do you suggest fixing the economy without deficit spending?”
Buzz Killington: “First of all, government can only do two things regarding the economy:
1) Take money from those that earned it, and give it to those that didn’t.”
Thank you for being a complete dipshit so fast. Now I can safely ignore the rest of your post, as you are clearly uneducated in economics.
Colin, how’d that tax hike in 19 and 93 turn out? I forget. What is Obama proposing?
yo mama: “Buzz, nice post. Spot on.”
One uneducated idiot supporting another.
Lovely.
Cite please. Put up or shut up. “Cuz I call shenanigans.
Speaking for myself, I complained about spending years ago when Bush was in office and the GOP controlled Congress:
http://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.com/2006/02/bush-vs-reagan.html
http://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.com/2006/02/sotu-iii.html
CSS: “Serious question… What is your training in economics?”
Sean D. Martin: “I’m curious. What is yours?”
University count?
Colin, how’d that tax hike in 19 and 93 turn out? I forget. What is Obama proposing?
Wait, I thought we were all a bunch of idiots because we fail to understand that Obama is actually cutting taxes?
Jeez people, pick a meme and stick with it.
Ordinarily, it would. But this year, the circumstances are different. Ever hear of continuing resolutions?
Oh, that’s right. Congress passed a continuing resolution so they could wait until after the Presidential elections to…lessee…allocate another trillion bucks to government programs? No, that’s not it…so they could scrap Mr. Bush’s budget entirely and start over? No, that’s not it either….
It’ll come to me in a second, Farris, but jump in and help me out here if you can.
Yes. The Herbert Hover school of economic recovery. We all know how well that worked out.
I strongly suspect that you don’t know what you are talking about.
For starters Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930 that placed a severe crimp on international trade and are anathema to free market economics. As wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover
The final attempt of the Hoover Administration to rescue the economy was the passage of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act which included funds for public works programs and the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932. The RFC’s initial goal was to provide government-secured loans to financial institutions, railroads and farmers. The RFC had minimal impact at the time, but was adopted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and greatly expanded as part of his New Deal.
[edit] Economy
In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a “check tax” was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today’s dollars) on all bank checks. Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin,[35] conclude that the check tax was “an important contributing factor to that period’s severe monetary contraction.” Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange, and this pressure resulted in various reforms.
For this reason, years later libertarians argued that Hoover’s economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible,” and of leading “the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.” Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of “leading the country down the path of socialism”.[36]
Serious question… What is your training in economics?
Serious answer: undergrad minor in econ, graduate degree in international trade and any number of outside readings.
Speaking for myself, I complained about spending years ago when Bush was in office and the GOP controlled Congress:
Oh yes, what a terrific smack down. I’ll bet bush couldn’t sit for days after that.
Imagine the nerve, not cutting social programs enough!
/sarcasm
The RFC’s initial goal was to provide government-secured loans to financial institutions, railroads and farmers. The RFC had minimal impact at the time, but was adopted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and greatly expanded as part of his New Deal.
Now why does that seem eerily familiar?
Oh yes, what a terrific smack down. I’ll bet bush couldn’t sit for days after that.
Imagine the nerve, not cutting social programs enough!
You’re right, I forgot to equate him with Hitler.
“We are going to take this country back”‘
This sounds like “The South will rise again!” Alright Jethro, just take it easy, we know losing the war of ideas is painful.
This one hit our homes, thanks to deregulation.
And how exactly did that happen? Every liberal who said deregulation caused the housing crisis cannot back that up with any kind of facts.
And if anybody points to The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act then they’d be better be prepared to blame Democrats as well since it passed with overwhelming Democratic support and signed into law by a Democratic President.
Of course, that hardly had anything to do with it. It was largely regulatory policies that strong-armed lenders into lowering standards for approving mortgages.
Translation: I got no idea.
Uhh..no. It’s a bullshit question because the government doesn’t fix the economy.
This is weird:
Yes it is ed, because it never happened. And yes, Clinton’s ‘last year’ was in office, but it was Clinton budget numbers that hit the books on September 30, 2001 (in case you need more history lessons, the US Fiscal year starts on October 1). And at that time, the national debt was $2.8 trillion higher than it was when Clinton took office and climbing. Like I said, gain an understanding of the relationship between the public debt and intergovernmental holdings first before parroting Thing Progress’s bullsheot.
So how does the non-government fix the economy.
How about freeing up capital that can be spent and invested? Instead of seeking to raise capital gains taxes, he should be looking to lower them (Like Bill Clinton of all people, did) as well as corporate taxes. Have 3-4 month payroll tax holiday which will give people a good shot of money to spend. In other words, get out of the way.
“For starters Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs…”
As a long time fan of Dave Barry, I can not discuss this Hawley Smoot treaty without laughing. Sorry.
“The final attempt of the Hoover Administration to rescue the economy was the passage of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act which…”
Which was too damn late to save his political hide.
“In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history.”
And Obama is cutting taxes, so you should be happy.
Me: “Serious question… What is your training in economics?”
Colin: “Serious answer: undergrad minor in econ, graduate degree in international trade and any number of outside readings.”
Actual training. Impressive.
You are still wrong, but at least you have the educational background to understand the real solutions.
When the economy grinds to a halt, it can take years, if not decades for demand to return. If people don’t have jobs, they will not buy a new car unless their stops to work. Do you know how long it will take for enough cars to break that current inventories will be used up enough to get auto manufactures to start hiring again?
In these cases, the government steps in and increases demand back to the level needed to restart to the economy, with the added benefit of improving infrastructure, which will help the economy, and therefore tax revenue, in the future.
Of course, that hardly had anything to do with it. It was largely regulatory policies that strong-armed lenders into lowering standards for approving mortgages.
You mean things like the CRA loans, that were twice as likely to be retained by the original bank, and less likely to be foreclosed?.
“That’s a question based only on the assumption that the only the government can ‘fix’ the economy.”
Because the private sector in the guise of Wall Street was obviously doing such a tremendous job.
God you Republicans are dumb. No wonder America wants nothing to do with you any longer.
Jay Caruso: “And how exactly did that happen? Every liberal who said deregulation caused the housing crisis cannot back that up with any kind of facts.”
It happened when unregulated industries took over traditional banking sectors. Someone could try and argue that this is or is not deregulation, but you are talking semantics and not the real issues. Somewhere along the line, the banking industry was no longer being regulated as it was before. I would suggest that creation / exploitation of a loophole is the same as deregulation.
I saw this excellent video that explained it in terms anyone could understand, but I can’t find it now. (Green background, lots of bombs. Anyone else see it?)
“It was largely regulatory policies that strong-armed lenders into lowering standards for approving mortgages.”
This is just a fucking lie. The government didn’t force banks to lower standards. The government forced banks to not have different standards for white and non-whites.
How many times do we have to explain this before you stop bringing up this lie?
Me: “So how does the non-government fix the economy.”
Jay Caruso: “How about freeing up capital that can be spent and invested?”
Who would be stupid enough to invest in a time like this?
The engine of the economy has stopped. It isn’t idling, it isn’t moving.
A little bit of tax cuts and a lower bank rate won’t help here, just like stepping on the gas won’t help when the engine has stopped.
You need a massive injection of demand in the system, just like you need a starter motor to get the engine in your car going.
But who will be the first to jump in with that demand? Only the government can play that role.
“God you Republicans are dumb. No wonder America wants nothing to do with you any longer.”
China and Venezuela have higher approval ratings. Comparing the GOP and Cuba and you find the GOP has a statistically insignificant lead over the country.
I wonder what Jay Caruso and the other GOPers here have to say about that?
Every liberal who said deregulation caused the housing crisis cannot back that up with any kind of facts.
—-snippage—–
Of course, that hardly had anything to do with it. It was largely regulatory policies that strong-armed lenders into lowering standards for approving mortgages.
From accusing others of ignoring facts to ignoring the facts himself in less than three paragraphs.
Outstanding, Jay!!
CSS: University count?
I’d say so. At least to show the person speaking has some formal understanding of economics. Just wondered if you had any specific credentials beyond college courses. Seems only fair to ask once you inquired as to Colin’s basis for economic knowledge.
Yes it is ed, because it never happened.
Because it just didn’t? On your say so? Sorry, I’m gonna need just a smidge of an iota of teensy bit more than that.
The really funny thing about the taking point of it being the fault of
eople that tried to get more house than they could pay for is what wrecked the economy!” Is that they were a SMALL piece of a small sector of the economy. (If I remember correctly it between 1 and less than 12% that took out these ARM’s and such for RESIDENTIAL loans)
The LARGER part came from the UNREGULATED buying and selling of CDS’s and the “Covering of margins” of those transactions.
That and the fact that even a 12 year old knows better than to do silly shit like that.
Am I the only one that remembers the warnings of derivatives?
fafaroo: “Buzz, if you want to characterize something such as highway construction as “taking money from those that earned it and giving it to those that didn’t” please at least see and admit that this is hackery of the highest order.”
Sorry, I was afraid I would be misunderstood. I tried to clarify my point later, when I said:
The more it spends in hopes of improving the economy (spending for the sake of spending), rather than as an intended expense (to buy something it actually needs, for example), the more damage it will do to the economy.
Infrastructure, public safety, and things like that I consider intended expense, so long as they aren’t done just for the sake of spending money (that they don’t have). Would you mind sharing your definition of hackery? It seems like that just means having different ideas than you.
And how exactly did that happen? Every liberal who said deregulation caused the housing crisis cannot back that up with any kind of facts.
And if anybody points to The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act then they’d be better be prepared to blame Democrats as well since it passed with overwhelming Democratic support and signed into law by a Democratic President.
It wasn’t only deregulation, but an overall aversion to regulation that kept new laws from being passed while old laws were either being rolled back or poorly enforced.
But yes, Jay, you’re right. Clinton presided over the repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. He was wrong. There’s no better or stronger way to put it. He was wrong, and everyone who voted to repeal it was wrong.
Just like he and everyone in Congress who declined to regulate the Credit Default Swap market was wrong. Just like the failure of the SEC to properly investigate and prosecute people engaging in fraud. This crisis didn’t happen because we repealed a bill. It happened because we decided people with a potential financial interest in dishonesty could be trusted to work with less oversight.
The problem is not Republican vs. Democrat, though. It’s – as much as I hate to use these terms – liberal vs. conservative. This was not a crisis caused by Republicans. Democrats either supported these policies or advocated for them on their own. It goes deeper than that.
It’s a crisis caused by this country’s economic philosophy over the last 30 years. The crisis wasn’t caused by Republicans. It was caused by conservative ideals. It was caused by a government too weak to stand up to dishonest corporate interests and a population bamboozled into thinking that freer and unregulated markets changed the house rules in a casino that would never pay out to them.
It was greed, on all sides of the aisles. Because underneath all the conservative talk about liberty and freedom and capitalism is a callous, cynical core of greed that was too appealing to our worst selves for America to resist.
And now we pay.
And Obama is cutting taxes, so you should be happy.
Name all of the tax rates Obama has cut.
When the economy grinds to a halt, it can take years, if not decades for demand to return. If people don’t have jobs, they will not buy a new car unless their stops to work. Do you know how long it will take for enough cars to break that current inventories will be used up enough to get auto manufactures to start hiring again?
In these cases, the government steps in and increases demand back to the level needed to restart to the economy, with the added benefit of improving infrastructure, which will help the economy, and therefore tax revenue, in the future.
Yes, I am familiar with this theory. The problem, however, is reality. Japan spent a bundle building bridges and other infrastructure during the 1990s, paving over about half the damn country, with little to show for it other than a debt to GDP ratio at about 180%.
http://media.economist.com/images/20081101/CBB312.gif
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06japan.html
Germany too spent like mad trying to rebuild East Germany, turning the East into one big public works zone. East Germany has great highways and other infrastructure but the economy continues to stagger.
The simple fact is that government doesn’t create new resources, it only transfers them. The money it spends is either obtained via taxation or borrowing (or inflationary printing presses). In either case that means a dollar spent is either removed from someone’s pocket by force (taxation) or voluntarily (borrowing) and is no longer available to be spent. Therefore in order for increased government spending to make sense you have to believe that the government will achieve more bang for the buck than the private sector will, which strikes me as absurd in the extreme.
Except that Japan raised taxes to cover their new spending, while the Obama Administration has cut them. Bit of an important detail to leave out.
Therefore in order for increased government spending to make sense you have to believe that the government will achieve more bang for the buck than the private sector will, which strikes me as absurd in the extreme.
Which is exactly the problem. That’s a statement of ideology, of economic religion. What’s absurd in the extreme is treating an ideal as an absolute.
For instance, in a time when the private sector is not investing, it doesn’t matter if the private sector would do a better job. They’re not doing a job, period. You say that the government only transfers resources, and that’s correct. That would only be a problem if those resources were currently in use.
Look at it like physics. In times of economic slack, a stimulus takes unused resources (which we could view as potential energy) and turns them into production (kinetic energy, yay!). Your view assumes that all energy is kinetic at all times, and is never lying in an unused, potential, state. This assumption is incorrect.
There are more variables than just the amount of money available for investment and the amount of government spending. Japan, for instance, spent the same years it was building bridges ignoring problems in its banking sector. The “zombie banks” that Japan was unwilling to deal with were a drag on the economy even as they tried to spend their way out of it.
In other words: It’s complicated.
Except that Japan raised taxes to cover their new spending, while the Obama Administration has cut them. Bit of an important detail to leave out.
Tell me which tax rates Obama has cut. I’m really interested. And guess what are happening to tax rates next year?
At least you’re starting to acknowledge that lower tax rates are good for growth and higher taxes harm growth, which is a welcome change.
Which is exactly the problem. That’s a statement of ideology, of economic religion. What’s absurd in the extreme is treating an ideal as an absolute.
It’s a statement of observable fact. If government allocated resources better than the private sector then people would have been fleeing to East Berlin.
More here:
http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/is-all-spending-created-equal/
For instance, in a time when the private sector is not investing, it doesn’t matter if the private sector would do a better job. They’re not doing a job, period. You say that the government only transfers resources, and that’s correct. That would only be a problem if those resources were currently in use.
Yes, that’s the problem — we’ve all got too much money sitting around that the government can make better use of. In any case I would rather leave the money in the private sector rather than leave it to John Murtha to spread around.
But forget theory for a sec, just look at observable reality. Was it government spending that brought us out of the 92′ recession? The 82′ recession?
Part of what is contributing to the lack of investment is uncertainty, given that the government is set to reorganize half the economy with ongoing interventions in the finance and auto sectors and upcoming plunges into energy and health care.
Infrastructure, public safety, and things like that I consider intended expense, so long as they aren’t done just for the sake of spending money (that they don’t have).
Fucking socialist.
Therefore in order for increased government spending to make sense you have to believe that the government will achieve more bang for the buck than the private sector will, which strikes me as absurd in the extreme.
If that were the case, we’d have a Boeing moonbase by now, right?
It’s a statement of observable fact. If government allocated resources better than the private sector then people would have been fleeing to East Berlin.
This statement is a special, awesome kind of layered incorrectness.
1) One data point does not a case make. I know you said you have an advanced degree, so surely you learned this much during your schooling.
2) Even if one data point could make a case, you might be better served choosing one that’s analogous to what we’re going through now. Equating a temporary stimulus bill to decades under a socialist oligarchy makes it sound like you think all government spending is socialist. But even if you’d like it to sound as such, I’m sure you’re sharp enough to know there is not a binary Capitalism/Socialism switch that economies flip. Maybe you should have stuck with Japan, or German reunification. They’re not perfect analogies, but at least they’re closer.
3) Even laying that aside, even accepting that your Communist East Germany analogy makes sense in this context, it’s still a poorly made point. In making the case that government stimulus can’t work, you should be picking well administrated examples, examples where the people involved did everything right by their own measures, and still failed. Not policies everyone on both sides of the debate thinks are dumb.
I’m not unsympathetic to conservative concerns about big government, debt and inefficient spending. But I find it impossible to discuss issues with people who wrap their views of a complicated world around simplistic axioms and refuse to admit when they’ve oversimplified a complicated topic to score points.
You could have debated in good faith, but instead you wallowed in baseless snark. It’s too bad. I’d like to be able to discuss this with you without having to wade through paragraphs of incorrect and unfunny sarcasm.
Ah well.
Colin: “At least you’re starting to acknowledge that lower tax rates are good for growth and higher taxes harm growth, which is a welcome change.”
Tax cuts can help in certain circumstances.
Are you willing to admit that cutting taxes can’t solve all problems, and done irresponsibly can make matters worse.
One data point does not a case make.
I see you either missed, or refused to address, this:
http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/is-all-spending-created-equal/
Tax cuts can help in certain circumstances.
Which ones?
Are you willing to admit that cutting taxes can’t solve all problems, and done irresponsibly can make matters worse.
Well, yes. I do not believe that tax rates are the only, or even most significant, ingredient of economic growth. Frankly, if I were given dictatorial powers over the tax code I would eliminate every deduction and charge a 20% rate across the board. it’s not the tax burden we currently have that kills me, it’s the complexity and inefficiency.
It would also do much to reduce the influence of lobbyists, which is why Congress will never go for it.
I refused to address it. It does not speak to any point I made, nor does it contain evidence to back up its own assertions. It’s an opinion piece and nothing more.
I’m not sure what bearing you think it has on my response to you, either. You tried to make an argument with a poorly chosen example when one example – even a good one – could not have done the trick. What does my silence on your link have to do with that?
When this started you did not say that government spending is usually worse than private spending, but is always worse.
That statement is absurd, and nothing you have said nor nothing you have linked since backs it up. I doubt there’s anything you can say that would. It’s an indefensible position. It’s too absolute, too blind to the complexities of actual economies.
As I said, you made a statement of ideology, not of fact.
Me: “Tax cuts can help in certain circumstances.”
Colin: “Which ones?”
Look at the Laffer curve. The real one, and not the bullshit one Libertarians usually talk about. If taxes are too high, lowering them can increase revenue.
‘Too high’ varies based on individual incomes and cultural norms. You can tax Swedish people more than Americans, because having a strong government is considered a source of pride to most Swedes, while the same is not true of most Americans.
Lowering taxes on the middle class is smart, because they are the engine that drives the economy.
Lowering taxes on the super rich doesn’t help, because they do not help the economy proportionately, either per capita or per dollar.
“Frankly, if I were given dictatorial powers over the tax code I would eliminate every deduction and charge a 20% rate across the board.”
Unless you plan to declare every dollar earned as income, regardless of source, and eliminated all other taxes, you have just given a massive tax cut to the rich and screwed the middle class. And if you do this, you no longer have the tax revenue to run the government.
“it’s not the tax burden we currently have that kills me, it’s the complexity and inefficiency.”
Complexity is there to make sure the rich can avoid paying taxes. I would reduce the tax code as well.
As for inefficiency, look up the IRS’s overhead. Compare that to private collection agencies.
When this started you did not say that government spending is usually worse than private spending, but is always worse.
That statement is absurd, and nothing you have said nor nothing you have linked since backs it up. I doubt there’s anything you can say that would. It’s an indefensible position. It’s too absolute, too blind to the complexities of actual economies.
This is so utterly dishonest. The context of my statement was that government spending is inferior to that of the private sector in achieving economic stimulus. I never said that ALL government spending is inferior, which would be asinine and indicate that I am an anarchist, which I am not.
And yes, when it comes to economic stimulus I would absolutely argue that government spending is inferior. Since you refuse to respond to the link I provided — which is absolutely germane to the discussion — allow me to quote:
When government adds to investment as a result of fiscal stimulus or directed monetary expansion (like buying mortgage-backed securities, student loans, etc) it does not act as a super-entrepreneur who is trying to determine the efficient and sustainable direction of resources, including the allocation of capital goods. It spends according to economically irrelevant criteria of job creation, propping up over-expanded sectors, and preventing politically painful adjustments.
Such spending is counterproductive in the medium to long term. It is also unsustainable (once the stimulus stops) since it is not consistent with the preferences of consumers-savers-investors.
In other words, rational and self-interested actors in the private sector are better at putting capital to useful ends than politicians such as Trent Lott, Robert Byrd and John Murtha who operate under a much different incentive structure.
And since you want more data points, I would refer you back to Japan and Germany which I already mentioned in this thread.
Lowering taxes on the middle class is smart, because they are the engine that drives the economy.
Lowering taxes on the super rich doesn’t help, because they do not help the economy proportionately, either per capita or per dollar.
You’re going to have to walk me through this one. How is the middle class the engine of economic growth? Is there data to back up your second assertion?
Also, your original statement was that “Tax cuts can help in certain circumstances.” Which circumstances are those? So far you have just laid out who should get the tax cuts rather than the circumstances that should dictate when we cut taxes.
Or was your statement about the Laffer curve, in which cutting taxes can raise revenue, the lone circumstance when this should be done? Because we are nowhere close to that point.
Unless you plan to declare every dollar earned as income, regardless of source, and eliminated all other taxes, you have just given a massive tax cut to the rich and screwed the middle class.
I would tax all sources of income at the same rate. Cap gains, ordinary income, dividends — all, 20%. I would keep in place the gas tax and maybe even raise it. Not sure about other excise taxes.
And if you do this, you no longer have the tax revenue to run the government.
We don’t have the tax revenue to run the government right now, but that isn’t stopping anyone. In any case, as dictator I would also take an axe to government programs. If 20% isn’t enough then that’s a good sign government is too big.
As for inefficiency, look up the IRS’s overhead. Compare that to private collection agencies.
Compare the IRS’s overhead to what it would be under a simple flat tax. In any case my point was from the perspective of taxpayer compliance, not the IRS.
Finding someone else who shares your opinion does not prove said opinion. It just makes your opinion a little less lonely.
Now that we’ve gotten to the point of the debate where you criticize me for not appreciating the intended nuance in comments about things being “absurd in the extreme” I think I can safely bow out.
Finding someone else who shares your opinion does not prove said opinion. It just makes your opinion a little less lonely.
It was an elaboration on my own opinion, one that you declined to address, preferring to instead dismiss me as unserious.
When I raised the issue again you said that it was irrelevant. When I pointed out its relevance you dismissed it as mere opinion.
Forgive me for thinking that you’re not as interested in an honest debate as you claim.
Colin: “You’re going to have to walk me through this one. How is the middle class the engine of economic growth?”
The United States is a consumer economy. Who do you think consumes the most?
“Is there data to back up your second assertion?”
Yes. Federal stats show Small Businesses help the economy the most.
“Or was your statement about the Laffer curve, in which cutting taxes can raise revenue, the lone circumstance when this should be done? Because we are nowhere close to that point.”
Agreed. We are nowhere close to having taxes that are too high.
Me: “And if you do this, you no longer have the tax revenue to run the government.”
Colin: “We don’t have the tax revenue to run the government right now, but that isn’t stopping anyone. In any case, as dictator I would also take an axe to government programs. If 20% isn’t enough then that’s a good sign government is too big.”
What would you cut?
“Compare the IRS’s overhead to what it would be under a simple flat tax.”
Two points…
1.) The United States has a flat tax system. Income tax hits the rich the most. Property Tax hits the middle class the most. Sales Tax hits the poor the most.
The net effect is a flat tax.
2.) Putting in a flat tax for income tax will mean the rich will pay a lot less in taxes, unless you do what I said above. (Make everything income and eliminate all other taxes.) Then you would need a flat tax that is closer to 50% than 20%.
C.S.Strowbridge: “Serious question… What is your training in economics?”
I guess you would dispute Thomas Edison’s light bulb, despite seeing that it actually worked, just because he didn’t have any formal education or training in science or engineering.
The United States is a consumer economy. Who do you think consumes the most?
We can only engage in consumption after we have produced something. Consumption is the fruit of production. Who do you think produces the most?
This is, incidentally, why the Scandinavian welfare states all have lower corporate tax rates than the US. They know that they need a dynamic business sector to fund the welfare state. Finland — which socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders lauds today in an op/ed in the Boston Globe — also has a top income tax rate of 31% I believe, which of course lower than our own. They make up for it with a high VAT and property taxes that disproportionately hit the poor and middle class.
Yes. Federal stats show Small Businesses help the economy the most.
I’m curious if you can point me to some of this data, because I have read several economists who say that the claim small business account for a disproportionate amount of job growth is a myth. Here is one such paper:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/4492.html
Agreed. We are nowhere close to having taxes that are too high.
So are there any other circumstances in which you would cut taxes? Or only those occasions when it would reap higher revenues?
What would you cut?
Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Education, DHS, and Commerce entirely for starters. Cut DOD by a min of 10%.
1.) The United States has a flat tax system. Income tax hits the rich the most. Property Tax hits the middle class the most. Sales Tax hits the poor the most.
The net effect is a flat tax.
That is not at all apparent. In fact, the NYT Economix blog was recently asked by its readers what the effective tax rates are for different income quintiles and said they don’t have the data and to send it in if you have it:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/reader-response-how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes-part-ii/
Even if I take your argument at face value it does nothing to eliminate the distortions and complexities of the tax code, which is the greatest virtue of a flat tax.
2.) Putting in a flat tax for income tax will mean the rich will pay a lot less in taxes, unless you do what I said above. (Make everything income and eliminate all other taxes.) Then you would need a flat tax that is closer to 50% than 20%.
Again, that is not at all apparent. Remember that two years ago Warren Buffet was complaining that he only paid an effective income tax rate of 17.7%. There is good reason to think he is hardly alone among the super rich:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/
That’s what a 70,000 page tax code and an army of lawyers gets you.
Me: “The United States is a consumer economy. Who do you think consumes the most?”
Colin: “We can only engage in consumption after we have produced something. Consumption is the fruit of production. Who do you think produces the most?”
Technically China does.
But it’s the middle class, again. Who do you think does the work?
Me: “Yes. Federal stats show Small Businesses help the economy the most.”
“I’m curious if you can point me to some of this data…”
Fuck no. The federal government is not well known for ease of access to data. Obama could be 100% transparent and still hide all government dirt buy burying it in a poorly designed database.
“…because I have read several economists who say that the claim small business account for a disproportionate amount of job growth is a myth.”
And we are down to dueling experts.
Me: “Agreed. We are nowhere close to having taxes that are too high.”
Colin: “So are there any other circumstances in which you would cut taxes? Or only those occasions when it would reap higher revenues?”
Until you have no debt, you need the revenue at its peak. Or at least no deficit. Once you are back in surpluses, then reducing taxes might be an option worth looking at.
If you are doing it to stimulate the economy, it is better to spend the money on infrastructure that will help boost the economy in the long term.
Me: “What would you cut?”
Colin: “Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Education, DHS, and Commerce entirely for starters. Cut DOD by a min of 10%.”
Do you have any idea what these departments do? You realize the USDA, for instance, includes food safety. If anything, these people need more resources, not less.
“In fact, the NYT Economix blog was recently asked by its readers what the effective tax rates are for different income quintiles and said they don’t have the data and to send it in if you have it:”
Really? Because I read in the Wall Street Journal (I think.) says otherwise. Dueling experts. (And it was 50% for those over $150,000 and 51% for those under. That’s total taxes at all levels.)
“Even if I take your argument at face value it does nothing to eliminate the distortions and complexities of the tax code, which is the greatest virtue of a flat tax.”
But you can simplify the tax code and leave it progressive. You don’t need a flat tax to do that.
I just finished my taxes, and it was 4 forms with a total of 10 pages, including the cover page with my ID. Half the pages I wrote down a handful of numbers, and maybe did some simple math.
Total time = 30 minutes. And that’s only cause I was watching the Canuck game while doing it.
As long as you’re not rooting for the Flyers, Strawbridge.
Eric Sipple: “As long as you’re not rooting for the Flyers, Strawbridge.”
Fuck’em. Don’t like the Flyer or the Rangers (hate the Rangers with a burning passion). Would like to see Boston or Pittsburgh make it out of the East.
Canucks all the way in the West.
But it’s the middle class, again. Who do you think does the work?
Labor is only one ingredient in production, with capital being the other. The U.S. is a capital intensive economy. Who do you think provides the capital?
Fuck no. The federal government is not well known for ease of access to data. Obama could be 100% transparent and still hide all government dirt buy burying it in a poorly designed database.
Wait, first you said that “Federal stats show Small Businesses help the economy the most” but now you say the stats aren’t available. Which is it?
And we are down to dueling experts.
A duel implies two sides. I have provided an expert while you have not.
Until you have no debt, you need the revenue at its peak. Or at least no deficit. Once you are back in surpluses, then reducing taxes might be an option worth looking at.
Then it’s fair to assume you opposed Obama’s promise to cut taxes for 95% of Americans?
Further, earlier you stated that “Tax cuts can help in certain circumstances.” but now you say that the only circumstance that matters is whether the budget is in deficit or not. So then is it fair to assume that you are only in favor of cutting taxes to help promote growth if there is no deficit?
Further, I’m still trying to figure out why tax cuts are off the table if they would result in a deficit but not increased government spending.
If you are doing it to stimulate the economy, it is better to spend the money on infrastructure that will help boost the economy in the long term.
In assessing this statement you have to look at marginal benefit. If Manhattan had zero bridges the benefit of building one would be huge. The benefit of building a second would be pretty significant as well. The benefit of the 10th would be less so.
This perhaps explains why Japan’s infrastructure binge in the 1990s achieved little, since there was little marginal benefit to be obtained. There is good reason to think that we are not in a dissimilar situation:
http://www.slate.com/id/2216532/pagenum/all/
Do you have any idea what these departments do? You realize the USDA, for instance, includes food safety. If anything, these people need more resources, not less.
You’re confusing intent with outcome. Why can’t we manage food safety in a similar fashion to many other products?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories
Really? Because I read in the Wall Street Journal (I think.) says otherwise. Dueling experts. (And it was 50% for those over $150,000 and 51% for those under. That’s total taxes at all levels.)
Again, you have not provided any data so I don’t see the duel. Provide me a link and your argument will be far more persuasive.
But you can simplify the tax code and leave it progressive. You don’t need a flat tax to do that.
True, but the flat tax also has the virtue of being fair. If you make 10 times more income you pay 10 times more tax.
I just finished my taxes, and it was 4 forms with a total of 10 pages, including the cover page with my ID. Half the pages I wrote down a handful of numbers, and maybe did some simple math.
Total time = 30 minutes. And that’s only cause I was watching the Canuck game while doing it.
I’m guessing you don’t own a business.
Let’s compare our tax system now with an income tax form from 1913:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/Rga0ojxHjlI/AAAAAAAAA8g/OQSmXLNWnWI/s1600-h/1913_1040_1.gif
The fact remains that our income tax code is 70,000 pages and growing. It’s full of loopholes and distortions that pervert our government and economic incentives.
Well, I actually had a lengthy response to this but it has failed to appear. That seems to happen on this blog a lot.
Canucks vs. Pittsburgh for the Cup? I can get behind that. Well ok, of course I can get behind the Penguins half, but still…