What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[jeninflorida]

Kicking the can down the road is exactly what extending the bush tax cuts would do.

Again, why don't you care about the deficit?

WTF? you seem to be confused, maybe you need to put down the Jack or Jim. You want to give the alcoholic free booze (by stealing it from the neighbor) and say that you fix that person.

more taxes is not the solution, they will just spend it. its just that simple

 

[jeninflorida]

fixt

Finally, some intelligence on the GB

 

[Sean Renaud]

WTF? you seem to be confused, maybe you need to put down the Jack or Jim. You want to give the alcoholic free booze (by stealing it from the neighbor) and say that you fix that person.

more taxes is not the solution, they will just spend it. its just that simple

Clinton surpluses say otherwise. Turns out even an alcoholic has an upper limit and once you give him all he can drink he can drink no more no matter how much you give him.

 

[koalabear]

Clinton surpluses say otherwise. Turns out even an alcoholic has an upper limit and once you give him all he can drink he can drink no more no matter how much you give him.

Clinton had no surplus, he stole from SS, so you are still logically stupid.

 

[jeninflorida]

Clinton surpluses say otherwise. Turns out even an alcoholic has an upper limit and once you give him all he can drink he can drink no more no matter how much you give him.

Clinton had a surplus dispute what he did. Why you ask! Because of the massive technology boom

ie Clinton past a VAT tax, anything over $40k (or was it 80,000), this new tax pretty much killed the boat manufacturing, private airplane industries.

Name 1 policy that Clinton did, that improve the business world or help create a surplus?

 

[jeninflorida]

Clinton had no surplus, he stole from SS, so you are still logically stupid.

Sean wold consider that "Revenue"

 

[unregistered]

 

[pete]

Clinton surpluses say otherwise. Turns out even an alcoholic has an upper limit and once you give him all he can drink he can drink no more no matter how much you give him.

it's not possible to compare clinton's economy and the current economy.

clinton enjoyed the boom of the tech industry, which put millions to work and generated trillions in wages, revenue, earnings, etc. not many people cared so much about the massive tax he laid down because everyone was working and doing well.

 

[pete]

Finally, some intelligence on the GB

thanks jenn

 

[koalabear]

Sean quite often falls for the tunnel painted on the cliff face.

That explains his flat nose.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Clinton had no surplus, he stole from SS, so you are still logically stupid.

That's not how Social Security works sweet heart. Social Security isn't a piggy bank you put money into and take out later, it's a direct transfer of wealth from the working to the retired. Even though you're lying that Clinton stole from the reserve fund even if he did he managed a surplus.

Clinton had a surplus dispute what he did. Why you ask! Because of the massive technology boom

ie Clinton past a VAT tax, anything over $40k (or was it 80,000), this new tax pretty much killed the boat manufacturing, private airplane industries.

Name 1 policy that Clinton did, that improve the business world or help create a surplus?

Not to dispute your point but despite is the word your looking for. Lets see, he raised taxes. He reformed welfare (which cost us in the long run and will continue to cost us but oh well, people in prison are better than those on welfare)

it's not possible to compare clinton's economy and the current economy.

clinton enjoyed the boom of the tech industry, which put millions to work and generated trillions in wages, revenue, earnings, etc. not many people cared so much about the massive tax he laid down because everyone was working and doing well.

Of course you can, even if you couldn't you need only look at the CBO's reports to show us how much the Bush tax cuts are costing us, or at the national debt prior to Reagan. We can afford our government. We actively choose not to.

 

[RobDownSouth]

[
Of course you can, even if you couldn't you need only look at the CBO's reports to show us how much the Bush tax cuts are costing us, or at the national debt prior to Reagan. We can afford our government. We actively choose not to.

But....but...that doesn't fit Petey's narrative!

Actually, according to Keynesian Theory (which Moochie abhors), during times o'plenty, the surplus should've been used to pay down the federal debt. Unfortunately, Dubya managed to convince a large number of Americans that greed was a virtue, and thus came the ill-advised Bush Tax Cuts, which have crippled America since then.

 

[Sean Renaud]

But....but...that doesn't fit Petey's narrative!

Actually, according to Keynesian Theory (which Moochie abhors), during times o'plenty, the surplus should've been used to pay down the federal debt. Unfortunately, Dubya managed to convince a large number of Americans that greed was a virtue, and thus came the ill-advised Bush Tax Cuts, which have crippled America since then.

To Bush's Defense there was a school of thought we might actually pay off the debt had he done nothing and as odd as it sounds we're better prepared as a nation to deal with a large debt than no debt at all.

 

[koalabear]

That's not how Social Security works sweet heart. Social Security isn't a piggy bank you put money into and take out later, it's a direct transfer of wealth from the working to the retired. Even though you're lying that Clinton stole from the reserve fund even if he did he managed a surplus.



Not to dispute your point but despite is the word your looking for. Lets see, he raised taxes. He reformed welfare (which cost us in the long run and will continue to cost us but oh well, people in prison are better than those on welfare)



Of course you can, even if you couldn't you need only look at the CBO's reports to show us how much the Bush tax cuts are costing us, or at the national debt prior to Reagan. We can afford our government. We actively choose not to.

I know you are stupid, stop proving it.

 

[pete]

Of course you can, even if you couldn't you need only look at the CBO's reports to show us how much the Bush tax cuts are costing us, or at the national debt prior to Reagan. We can afford our government. We actively choose not to.

we can, or we can't?

the answer is, 2 economies from 2 different time periods can't be compared. what worked for one absolutely may not work for the other. to assume so is to be completely out of touch with how monumentally complex our national economy is.

the bush tax cuts are adding to the debt, that's true. but they are helpful in the short term, which everyone hopes will translate into helpful for the long term.

adding new higher taxes could be harmful in the short term, which may end up being disastrous in the long term.

can you explain how higher taxes now would be beneficial?

 

[Sean Renaud]

can you explain how higher taxes now would be beneficial?

First if you can't compare different economies because time/technology has changed it's difficult to hold any conversation. Sure things have changed but that doesn't mean the fundamentals change.

Higher taxes would likely have greater revenue and thus we could stop laying off government workers. Every government worker we lay off is one more unemployed person who isn't spending money who thus isn't generating demand. We can look at the stock market or corporate profits and it's obvious that the problem isn't that job creators aren't making money which means either demand is low or their intentionally starving us out. I don't think they are evil, just self serving so I assume it's the latter until I see the curleh mustaches and top hats.

I see how people think it would hurt but I think those people are small thinkers with no sense of scale. (when talking about the Bush tax cuts, not some other increase)

 

[richard_daily]

WTF? you seem to be confused, maybe you need to put down the Jack or Jim. You want to give the alcoholic free booze (by stealing it from the neighbor) and say that you fix that person.

more taxes is not the solution, they will just spend it. its just that simple

Do you even understand what a deficit is?

Also, what do you do for a living?

 

[pete]

First if you can't compare different economies because time/technology has changed it's difficult to hold any conversation. Sure things have changed but that doesn't mean the fundamentals change.

Higher taxes would likely have greater revenue and thus we could stop laying off government workers. Every government worker we lay off is one more unemployed person who isn't spending money who thus isn't generating demand. We can look at the stock market or corporate profits and it's obvious that the problem isn't that job creators aren't making money which means either demand is low or their intentionally starving us out. I don't think they are evil, just self serving so I assume it's the latter until I see the curleh mustaches and top hats.

I see how people think it would hurt but I think those people are small thinkers with no sense of scale. (when talking about the Bush tax cuts, not some other increase)

*they're

hhmm maybe we're small thinkers, yeah.
then again, maybe the tax increasers are small thinkers for not taking into account the fact that businesses and corporations have been hesitant to expand and hire because washington keeps dicking around with major programs like healthcare and adding new regulations every second tuesday. uncertainty has played a huge part in the economy the past few years, both here and abroad.

one thing that definitely didn't help was the blank check bailouts of the banks. instead of simply giving them money to remain solvent, i think there should have been conditions with the bailouts so that a % of the bailout money and a % of their regained profits had to be converted down to small business and construction loans. instead the banks invested in bonds and similar devices which help them make money, but don't do a single damn thing to help either the public consumers or the economy at large.

 

[Sean Renaud]

*they're

hhmm maybe we're small thinkers, yeah.
then again, maybe the tax increasers are small thinkers for not taking into account the fact that businesses and corporations have been hesitant to expand and hire because washington keeps dicking around with major programs like healthcare and adding new regulations every second tuesday. uncertainty has played a huge part in the economy the past few years, both here and abroad.

one thing that definitely didn't help was the blank check bailouts of the banks. instead of simply giving them money to remain solvent, i think there should have been conditions with the bailouts so that a % of the bailout money and a % of their regained profits had to be converted down to small business and construction loans. instead the banks invested in bonds and similar devices which help them make money, but don't do a single damn thing to help either the public consumers or the economy at large.

What do you have gain by holding back? If you can expand you should expand because 60% of 1.2 million dollars is still more than 63% of 1 million dollars. If you're hesitant to expand because you think there is going to be a minor tax increase your silly.

What are these new regulations that are effecting businesses? Be specific.

Economist disagree that the bail out didn't work. There should have been conditions, and they should have been regulated and eventually broken down into smaller parts. However the economy at large is rather awkward because we're all very very stupid. I blame this more on the right than the left but this is a moment when I'll vouch and say we're all very very stupid. It's not that it's not growing, it's that we aren't seeing it on the ground.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Government needs to cut it's spending when it's revenues drop FOR WHATEVER REASON, like you'd have to do if you got a cut in pay. When taxes are cut it's not a "cost" to government, it's not their money. Does anyone in the government ever ask you if your can "afford" a tax increase before it happens, do they care?

Except that's when we need government the most. If revenues drop it's because we aren't making money. The last thing we want is for them to start laying us off.

Tax cuts are a "cost" to the government the same way you agreeing to take a pay cut are a "cost" to your family budget. Government doesn't directly ask me anything, I however vote and have a fairly decent idea of what the people I vote for are likely to do and here in California we actually vote on a lot of of our taxes. We're damn near democratic to a fault.

 

[bra_man69]

Government needs to cut it's spending when it's revenues drop FOR WHATEVER REASON, like you'd have to do if you got a cut in pay. When taxes are cut it's not a "cost" to government, it's not their money. Does anyone in the government ever ask you if your can "afford" a tax increase before it happens, do they care?

See that Sean/coach ben busy today and hasn't got them mixed up yet today

 

[bra_man69]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DmgO13oRJe0/TccQraHG5gI/AAAAAAAAAEI/I8SNZdJMuA4/s1600/obamafunny.jpg

 

[unregistered]

 

[bra_man69]

Reagan inherited the worse economy since the depression and turned it around, though he added to the debt like Democrats like to point out, the economy was expanding at the time so the dept as a percentage of GDP was going down. Clinton and Gore inherited the Reagan economy from Bush and spent the first two years doubling the deficit. It took a Republican Congress to save Clinton from himself as illustrated here:

http://www.chrishenchy.com/images/BillEcon.gif

Clinton started moving to the right he know if he didn't wasn't going to get reelected.
The biggest economic growth in are history happened the last quarter of bush's time in office.