Debt Limit Bottom Line

[Cartervol]

First thing they should do is lower the corporate tax rate. There is no incentive to make things here, the government is too far up everyone's rear end. I love a room full of educated idiots trying to figure out a way out of the mess they created. Greed, waste and out of control spending. Things they're really not addressing up there, but they are kicking around the idea of taking more of your money. We're doomed.

 

[utvolpj]

I have one question, especially if you're personally receiving tax breaks. Since we have these totally necessary tax breaks in place right now that were started during the Bush admin. and continued under Obama and the purpose of the extension was, in theory, to allow for rich folks to keep more money they would spend, which would lead to growth in business which would, in turn, spawn job growth, then why the hell are the people profiting from the tax cuts not keeping up their end of the deal?

Don't tell me that times are bad and the rich are being more cautious with their money. That's counterintuitive to the argument of extended tax breaks for those in the very top tax bracket.

to steal a line from our dear leader, how bad would it have been it the largest tax increase in US history had been implemented on 1/1/11? You can't really think this would have been positive for the economy

 

[Weezy]

I don't think slicing gov't funding is going to be all that great either. There's going to be a lot of gov't jobs lost when the slicing begins. This also includes a lot of gov't contracts to private companies. Which I agree is right for the future, but I don't see how that helps the economy in the recovery. It's a crap situation that's for sure.

 

[lawgator1]

First thing they should do is lower the corporate tax rate. There is no incentive to make things here, the government is too far up everyone's rear end. I love a room full of educated idiots trying to figure out a way out of the mess they created. Greed, waste and out of control spending. Things they're really not addressing up there, but they are kicking around the idea of taking more of your money. We're doomed.

This might have merit if it weren't for the fact that the biggest corporations AREN'T PAYING ANYTHING NEAR that rate.

You can make the rate 3,000,000,000 %, or you can make it .000001 %. As long as the giants control how the tax code is written and implemented, you are fooling yourself if you think that the "rate" is what its about.

Talk about the "rate" is complete bull shiite, concocted to fool people into thinking that the rates are too high.

The bottom line is that corporations and the wealthiest are going to have to pay out more tax dollars. Call it higher rates, call it less loopholes, whatever you need to do to sell it. Effectively, they are going to have to write bigger checks.

 

[utvolpj]

Talk about the "rate" is complete bull shiite, concocted to fool people into thinking that the rates are too high.

I agree since corps don't really pay taxes

Call it higher rates, call it less loopholes, whatever you need to do to sell it. Effectively, they are going to have to write bigger checks.

how about we just call it higher prices? That should really help the economy

 

[lawgator1]

I agree since corps don't really pay taxes



how about we just call it higher prices? That should really help the economy

No, call it slimmer profit margins since they will want to remain competitive.

 

[utvolpj]

No, call it slimmer profit margins since they will want to remain competitive.

you and gibbs are the only ones who believe this

and dictating profits by taxation seems to be a dangerous game

 

[lawgator1]

you and gibbs are the only ones who believe this

and dictating profits by taxation seems to be a dangerous game

Link to the evidence that a tax increase on corporations would cause a linear increase in prices?

How about this one: Got a link that the Bush tax cuts have caused hiring?

Please. Its caused capital flight and more squeeze on the middle class than ever before.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Link to the evidence that a tax increase on corporations would cause a linear increase in prices?

How about this one: Got a link that the Bush tax cuts have caused hiring?

Please. Its caused capital flight and more squeeze on the middle class than ever before.

1. Good grief.

2. Good grief.

3. Beyond good grief.

 

[utvolpj]

could ask the same but I doubt you have links either. If you think an across the board tax increase on a product would mean lower profits and the same pricing then I have no idea how to link that since it's fantasy

also please explain how the largest tax increase in US history would have helped the economy

 

[lawgator1]

Clinton had higher taxes on the wealthy and economic growth was outstanding.

Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and by the end of his term we were hours away from a cataclysmic depression.

Not saying that its that simple -- of course its much more complicated and for example the banking crisis in 2007-2008 is not a taxation issue.

But, what you can say is that this fantasy of benevolent upper class that will drop money packets on the middle class like raindrops if we just cut their taxes some more is sheer nonsense.

So far, all evidence is that the Bush tax cuts have had NO helpful effect on the economy.

The wining formula for substantial debt reduction: 1) Make sizable cuts in entitlements over a long horizon, like 50 years; 2) end the Bush tax cuts and in fact INCREASE the amount paid on windfall bonuses and income on Wall Street; 3) figure out end games in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[utvolpj]

Clinton had higher taxes on the wealthy and economic growth was outstanding.

and where did that bubble get us?

So far, all evidence is that the Bush tax cuts have had NO helpful effect on the economy.

do you believe the largest tax increase in US history would have helped the economy? Simple question

and trying to cut entitlements over a span of 50yrs is absolutely ridiculous. It's as bad as trying to sell the American people on spending cuts on top of raised taxes like Obama just tried.

 

[lawgator1]

and where did that bubble get us?



do you believe the largest tax increase in US history would have helped the economy? Simple question

and trying to cut entitlements over a span of 50yrs is absolutely ridiculous. It's as bad as trying to sell the American people on spending cuts on top of raised taxes like Obama just tried.

I believe that the tax cut did not help the economy in any measurable sense and that, because it has added a significant amount to the deficit, yes, it has hurt the economy (along with a lot of other things).

 

[droski]

I believe that the tax cut did not help the economy in any measurable sense and that, because it has added a significant amount to the deficit, yes, it has hurt the economy (along with a lot of other things).

specifically how has the increased deficit from the tax cuts hurt the economy? i'd say recovering from the dotcom burst and 9/11 is a pretty remarkable economic feat.

 

[Gramps]

During this debt ceiling debate the GOP is being very hypocritical. Several of the same congressman/women and senators that are now saying they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling if any revenue increases are involved are the same people that spent like a bunch of drunk sailors during the Bush 2 presidency and voted to increase the debt ceiling in 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006 and 2207.
The Dems are no better. Both sides are doing no more than trying to appease certain groups. IMO both side are equally blame for the financial mess we are in.

Reagan increased taxes several times, Bush 1 increased taxes, Clinton increased taxes and it did not kill job creation, that'a fact. Bush 2 cut taxes and has the worse track record on job creation since the labor department started keeping records in 1939.
Jimmy Carter is considered the worse president in recent history and he created 4 times the jobs created under Bush 2 in half the time.

Bill Clinton ... 8 years ... 23.1 million net jobs created
Ronald Reagan ---8 years ...16 million net jobs created
Bush 1 --------4 years -----3 million net jobs created
Bush 2 --------8 years -----2.5 million net jobs created

Carter ........... 4 years -----10.5 million net jobs created

Flame away

 

[utvolpj]

I believe that the tax cut did not help the economy in any measurable sense and that, because it has added a significant amount to the deficit, yes, it has hurt the economy (along with a lot of other things).

simple yes/no question that you just won't answer

and you really think higher taxes would have helped us recover faster from the damage of the dotcom bubble and 9/11?

 

[IPorange]

Just rolling this out there, I am not claiming this is the case:

Could a lot of our economic woes be due to a free trade in a global economy? Is the ground we had being balanced out to East Asia, South Asia, and Eastern Europe?

 

[IPorange]

During this debt ceiling debate the GOP is being very hypocritical. Several of the same congressman/women and senators that are now saying they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling if any revenue increases are involved are the same people that spent like a bunch of drunk sailors during the Bush 2 presidency and voted to increase the debt ceiling in 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006 and 2207.
The Dems are no better. Both sides are doing no more than trying to appease certain groups. IMO both side are equally blame for the financial mess we are in.

Reagan increased taxes several times, Bush 1 increased taxes, Clinton increased taxes and it did not kill job creation, that'a fact. Bush 2 cut taxes and has the worse track record on job creation since the labor department started keeping records in 1939.
Jimmy Carter is considered the worse president in recent history and he created 4 times the jobs created under Bush 2 in half the time.

Bill Clinton ... 8 years ... 23.1 million net jobs created
Ronald Reagan ---8 years ...16 million net jobs created
Bush 1 --------4 years -----3 million net jobs created
Bush 2 --------8 years -----2.5 million net jobs created

Carter ........... 4 years -----10.5 million net jobs created

Flame away

Props for brave post.

 

[KiffinKiller]

During this debt ceiling debate the GOP is being very hypocritical. Several of the same congressman/women and senators that are now saying they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling if any revenue increases are involved are the same people that spent like a bunch of drunk sailors during the Bush 2 presidency and voted to increase the debt ceiling in 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006 and 2207.
The Dems are no better. Both sides are doing no more than trying to appease certain groups. IMO both side are equally blame for the financial mess we are in.

Reagan increased taxes several times, Bush 1 increased taxes, Clinton increased taxes and it did not kill job creation, that'a fact. Bush 2 cut taxes and has the worse track record on job creation since the labor department started keeping records in 1939.
Jimmy Carter is considered the worse president in recent history and he created 4 times the jobs created under Bush 2 in half the time.

Bill Clinton ... 8 years ... 23.1 million net jobs created
Ronald Reagan ---8 years ...16 million net jobs created
Bush 1 --------4 years -----3 million net jobs created
Bush 2 --------8 years -----2.5 million net jobs created

Carter ........... 4 years -----10.5 million net jobs created

Flame away

Very interesting.

 

[lawgator1]

A lot of the job creation issue is I think structural. With the internet and increased efficiency in terms of sales, communications, etc., that is having a huge effect on job growth. We are going to have to get out of our heads this 5 % unemployment number as "normal." The new normal may indeed be more like 6 or even 7.

 

[droski]

During this debt ceiling debate the GOP is being very hypocritical. Several of the same congressman/women and senators that are now saying they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling if any revenue increases are involved are the same people that spent like a bunch of drunk sailors during the Bush 2 presidency and voted to increase the debt ceiling in 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006 and 2207.
The Dems are no better. Both sides are doing no more than trying to appease certain groups. IMO both side are equally blame for the financial mess we are in.

Reagan increased taxes several times, Bush 1 increased taxes, Clinton increased taxes and it did not kill job creation, that'a fact. Bush 2 cut taxes and has the worse track record on job creation since the labor department started keeping records in 1939.
Jimmy Carter is considered the worse president in recent history and he created 4 times the jobs created under Bush 2 in half the time.

Bill Clinton ... 8 years ... 23.1 million net jobs created
Ronald Reagan ---8 years ...16 million net jobs created
Bush 1 --------4 years -----3 million net jobs created
Bush 2 --------8 years -----2.5 million net jobs created

Carter ........... 4 years -----10.5 million net jobs created

Flame away

rather misleading statistics. carters job creation were during his first 2 years. reagan's job losses were during his first 2 years. it's the second half of a presidency where a presidents economic policy can be judged. that is unless said president spends $1 trillion to "save jobs." and let's not forget the economy was turning rather significantly at the end of bush 1's tenure. something billy definetely benefited from.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Props for brave post.

but the net jobs silliness is a farce. Bush was the first to really have to live with NAFTA and burgeoning China's outsourced free labor. The analysis absolutely ignored the recession Bush 2 started with and the enormous boon that his policies and our greater financial policies were to job creation. Housing bubble bursting and worldwide recession make that net number useless as a comparative. Clinton took over in the midst of a recession and off the heels of some of the tightest capital markets ever. He was also the beneficiary of an opposing congress and was rewarded for oodles of investment capital put to work through the late 80s.

Tax policy certainly impacts the labor markets, but the post implies that increasing rates increases employment, which is utterly stupid. Hence, taking raw stats in a vacuum is crazy.

 

[droski]

A lot of the job creation issue is I think structural. With the internet and increased efficiency in terms of sales, communications, etc., that is having a huge effect on job growth. We are going to have to get out of our heads this 5 % unemployment number as "normal." The new normal may indeed be more like 6 or even 7.

it's interesting that while you seem to realize middle class jobs are getting outsourced you blame the rich for the ails of the middle class?

 

[volinbham]

Just rolling this out there, I am not claiming this is the case:

Could a lot of our economic woes be due to a free trade in a global economy? Is the ground we had being balanced out to East Asia, South Asia, and Eastern Europe?

Currently reading a book called World 3.0 by Pankaj Ghemawat. Assume it will have a take on this but I haven't gotten very far.

Most interesting so far is the debunking of how much globalization has occurred. On virtually every metric, economies are vastly national not international.

 

[lawgator1]

it's interesting that while you seem to realize middle class jobs are getting outsourced you blame the rich for the ails of the middle class?

I don't "blame" the top for anything other than for jealousy guarding their status at the top by manipulation of the taxation system so as to perpetuate their position.

And, in my view outsourcing has two faces. One is cheaper labor overseas in the developing countries. Second is the fact of faster communications and processing, and that's affecting commerce and the need for workers all over the globe.

Its no one's "fault." Its all inevitable, if you think about it. But taking a step back if you ask me whether I think that maintaining the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest, or actually giving them more tax breaks, will help or hurt, my answer is that there is absolutely no reason to think it will help in any meaningful way, whereas we know for a fact that it increases the debt.