Federal Deficit to soar to 407 Billion

#76
#76
BigPapaVol said:
Not enough time to hammer the links you've thrown out there, but it's absolutely ridiculous to think this $1.2 trillion from the backs of our high earners won't have a massive negative effect on our economy. Hence, the assumption that the gov't receipts category for each candidate would remain essentially unchanged is pure silliness.

I understand that you think the difference is coming from the super wealthy, but that is an outright lie. The super wealthy have already earned their wealth and pay only on incremental earnings and pay little in that regard because periods like this one provide long term tax savings due to real estate losses and cap gains hits. The real money that Obama has to generate must come from the high earners, who are the business owners and income generators for larger businesses. Hammering those guys absolutely will change employment rates, pay and patterns. Don't wanna go through risk / return here, but there's a point where these folks are no longer making an appropriate return on their entrepreneurial risk, and simply scale back, hold their own and wait for better days. Given the money mulitplier effect, those guys backing down just a bit is an enormous (I can't say it loudly enough) impact to GDP and gov't receipts. In the end, it has to actually shrink the economy as a whole.

I know you buy those articles because they support your worldview, but Obama cannot get anything done with the plan he has in place. Gov't receipts decreases will offset any incremental income that he realizes in taxing the wealthy. The vast majority of economists on earth have come to this conclusion about taxation vs. GDP and governmental receipts. It's really not debatable, so you should immediately discount any study that takes the two candidates' plans and pretends that they are revenue neutral. It's absolute absurdity.

Finally, when was the last time that the CBO was right about any single projection that it made, ever? Their models are so rife with absurd assumptions as to be laughable.
Click to expand...

I started reading this, fell asleep, and woke up in a pile of drool.

CBO? What? Tax Policy Center - Brookings Institution - independent organization. objectivity.

$1.2 trillion, or whatever it is, is the estimated difference btwn what McCain's plan will add to the debt and what Obama's will. The report does NOT say either plan is revenue neutral. Clear?

They'll both increase debt big-time, just appears McCain's by about 40% more, according to this report. Find me an estimate that says McCain's won't add more, and I'll read it.
 
#77
#77
#78
#78
TennNC said:
I started reading this, fell asleep, and woke up in a pile of drool.

CBO? What? Tax Policy Center - Brookings Institution - independent organization. objectivity.

$1.2 trillion, or whatever it is, is the estimated difference btwn what McCain's plan will add to the debt and what Obama's will. The report does NOT say either plan is revenue neutral. Clear?

They'll both increase debt big-time, just appears McCain's by about 40% more, according to this report. Find me an estimate that says McCain's won't add more, and I'll read it.
Click to expand...
Sleeping on stuff like this is why you buy the Obama drivel and pronouncements of this nature.

There exists no neutral anything regarding tax policy consequences, period. Doesn't exist. Isn't out there.

I get where the numbers came from, but given the analysis, it's essentially the difference between what Obama's plan and McCain's plan will bill for taxes, given current revenue projections, and each candidates stated expense plans. The pro forma difference in billing essentially generates the bigger hole on the McCain side because he shows no meaningful tax increases. You do understand how this is leaving the suppressant effect of Obama's taxes out of the government receipts to come to this conclusion. Reagan went a long way to make clear that our thinking forever was wrong about gross taxes, but this analysis won't go there because it would be seen as partisan.

I understand how they came to their conclusions. So do they and they know they did it poorly. Using any dynamic modeling of the economy would shred this absurdity to pieces, but it would make too many brains hurt to walk through the assumptions that drive such a model. Hence, they fix as many variables as possible and run a couple of iterations through their broken model to give results. It's not new.

Essentially, this analysis doesn't give either plan credit for increasing or decreasing existing revenues, because it would be too controversial for them to retain their fake neutrality. Don't know if I mentioned it, but neutrality on tax consequences is a lie. It doesn't exist. Clear?

You aren't going to find a report from anyone calling themselves unbiased that would claim that the less tax burden plan would generate more revenue. Hell, you know empirically that less taxes to a point leads to increased governmental receipts.
 
#79
#79
oklavol said:
Bush spends money like there's no tomorrow; invades Iraq, prescription drug plan for seniors, money to fight aids in Africa, etc he's worse then any President we've ever had in this respect.

Clinton was never this bad. The size of the govt actually shrunk under Clinton, it's soared under Bush. Bush is the worse President in our lifetime. Everyone else is a distant second. He's left the next president a bigger mess then he inherited and did nothing to address the long term problems the country faces, but instead by his irresponsible spending made them worse.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about the size of govt shrinking under Clinton. Spending grew from 1.409T in 1993 to 1.789T in 2000. There was an increase year to year every year.

I do agree though that Bush has spent way too much money. And not just on the war. His non-defense discretionary spending has been way too high. The additional revenue created by the tax cuts could have absorbed the additional military spending, but he also went hog wild on entitlements and didn’t have the guts to veto the truck loads of pork running through congress.
 
#80
#80
BigPapaVol said:
Sleeping on stuff like this is why you buy the Obama drivel and pronouncements of this nature.

There exists no neutral anything regarding tax policy consequences, period. Doesn't exist. Isn't out there.

I get where the numbers came from, but given the analysis, it's essentially the difference between what Obama's plan and McCain's plan will bill for taxes, given current revenue projections, and each candidates stated expense plans. The pro forma difference in billing essentially generates the bigger hole on the McCain side because he shows no meaningful tax increases. You do understand how this is leaving the suppressant effect of Obama's taxes out of the government receipts to come to this conclusion. Reagan went a long way to make clear that our thinking forever was wrong about gross taxes, but this analysis won't go there because it would be seen as partisan.

I understand how they came to their conclusions. So do they and they know they did it poorly. Using any dynamic modeling of the economy would shred this absurdity to pieces, but it would make too many brains hurt to walk through the assumptions that drive such a model. Hence, they fix as many variables as possible and run a couple of iterations through their broken model to give results. It's not new.

Essentially, this analysis doesn't give either plan credit for increasing or decreasing existing revenues, because it would be too controversial for them to retain their fake neutrality. Don't know if I mentioned it, but neutrality on tax consequences is a lie. It doesn't exist. Clear?

You aren't going to find a report from anyone calling themselves unbiased that would claim that the less tax burden plan would generate more revenue. Hell, you know empirically that less taxes to a point leads to increased governmental receipts.
Click to expand...

have you been drinking?
 
#83
#83
TennNC said:
BPV?

Care to comment?
Click to expand...
I know he said it and believes it, but he's not the idiot at the helm of Fannie or Freddie or the FHA. They pushed myriad loans through th system reaching for this goal. They started that, oh, roughly 5 years ago.

Bush's idea mirrors those and is stupidity. Everyone isn't prepared to be a homeowner. Bad loans are bad loans.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#84
#84
oklavol said:
No one has ever spent more money then the current administration. But keep voting Republican. What's the defintion of insanity, keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Unless your a Republican, then its a good idea.
Click to expand...

i agree, they have spent like democrats. that's one reason they lost the houses. but during bush's administration, the treasury dept took in record tax receipts yearly. if we didn't have the tax cuts, i'd say our deficent would be 30%-40% more than it is today and we would have stayed in the recession much longer after 9/11/08.
 
#85
#85
BigPapaVol said:
Sleeping on stuff like this is why you buy the Obama drivel and pronouncements of this nature.

There exists no neutral anything regarding tax policy consequences, period. Doesn't exist. Isn't out there.

I get where the numbers came from, but given the analysis, it's essentially the difference between what Obama's plan and McCain's plan will bill for taxes, given current revenue projections, and each candidates stated expense plans. The pro forma difference in billing essentially generates the bigger hole on the McCain side because he shows no meaningful tax increases. You do understand how this is leaving the suppressant effect of Obama's taxes out of the government receipts to come to this conclusion. Reagan went a long way to make clear that our thinking forever was wrong about gross taxes, but this analysis won't go there because it would be seen as partisan.

I understand how they came to their conclusions. So do they and they know they did it poorly. Using any dynamic modeling of the economy would shred this absurdity to pieces, but it would make too many brains hurt to walk through the assumptions that drive such a model. Hence, they fix as many variables as possible and run a couple of iterations through their broken model to give results. It's not new.

Essentially, this analysis doesn't give either plan credit for increasing or decreasing existing revenues, because it would be too controversial for them to retain their fake neutrality. Don't know if I mentioned it, but neutrality on tax consequences is a lie. It doesn't exist. Clear?

You aren't going to find a report from anyone calling themselves unbiased that would claim that the less tax burden plan would generate more revenue. Hell, you know empirically that less taxes to a point leads to increased governmental receipts.
Click to expand...

While I'll defer to your expertise in economic matters, but when you make an argument like this, I think you really need to be able to say what that point of diminishing returns for tax cuts is instead of jst saying in general. How much are people's standard of living being effected by the current level of taxes (good or bad)?

Second, with inflation officially running at five percent (unofficially over ten), you'd expect revenues to be going up from price increases that don't represent value increases. Is it possible that the current level of taxes is driving this inflation in some way? Would raising taxes help to control this?
 
#86
#86
TennNC said:
ownership by all. where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah - by that leftwing nutjob liberal communist Marxist Socialist, George W. Bush.

Ownership society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The key difference is the idea of the state subsidizing ownership via extension of credit to those who are not credit worthy at the time. That notion is entirely inconsistent with the notion of "ownership society".
 
#87
#87
jdsa said:
While I'll defer to your expertise in economic matters, but when you make an argument like this, I think you really need to be able to say what that point of diminishing returns for tax cuts is instead of jst saying in general. How much are people's standard of living being effected by the current level of taxes (good or bad)?

Second, with inflation officially running at five percent (unofficially over ten), you'd expect revenues to be going up from price increases that don't represent value increases. Is it possible that the current level of taxes is driving this inflation in some way? Would raising taxes help to control this?
Click to expand...

Too many variables, including many worldwide ones, to actually find the point of diminishing returns on taxes. I can tell you that the reduction in marginal rates on high earners and 15% cap gains has had an enormous hand in keeping inflation low over the past 3 years, when our economy shed enormous numbers of construction jobs.

I'm not debating standard of living in talking taxes. I'm talking about investors of the world ceasing their risk and becoming sideline sitters. That's the worst scenario possible for our economy, no two ways about it. Then jobs simply go away. The nasty part is that new ones don't come along because level of investment is down based upon reduced returns.

I'm not sure how you would get that inflation does anything for governmental receipts. Profit is taxed. Inflation always means less profit. If the two moved in concert, nobody would care about the wealth destruction capacity of inflation. Price increases are simply the supplier of the product trying to pass through as much of their new costs as possible. It's not generating more margin for them.

The current round of inflation is being driven almost 100% by energy pricing. Our cheap dollar plays in that equation because much of our energy is imported. Unfortunately, our cheap dollar is hell on imports but it sure helps every single company out there selling exports of any kind.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top