Defiant:

wow, you are just not too bright, are you.

You can criticize Danivon's political philosophy all you want, but accusing him of low intelligence is just about the silliest thing I've read on these boards, and that's saying something.

Ray Jay wrote:You can criticize Danivon's political philosophy all you want, but accusing him of low intelligence is just about the silliest thing I've read on these boards, and that's saying something.

RayJay, I don't think I ever heard somebody say that a tax rebate is a bribe to the taxpayers.

Alright, since I am new and I don't know Danivon that well yet, I will say it was a dumb comment not to reflect on his overall intellect.

Defiant,
I think Ray Jay said it very well. We are always civil here. Welcome to the boards, and I hope you stay with us for a long time. The people here are my second family.

It is a difference in political views. Those on the left believe that the government should have more money to help those who (in their opinion) need it. Those on the right believe that the people who earn the money should be allowed to use it for causes of their own choosing. I am not an anarchist, I think the government does serve a purpose, but is extremely bloated. I have called for a 20% across the board cut of ALL budgets. Those on the left could not fathom such an idea. Sooner or later it will come to that.

danivon wrote:Sorry, now I am confused now.

No, you're not confused. There is a huge chasm from "confused" to "dishonest" and you remain so close to the latter as to be indistinguishable from it.

But you also say that you don't think the tax cuts should have been reversed....

I said taxes should not have been raised. However, when passed, they had an expiration date. Since you're being so picky as to be generally dishonest, I know you can "appreciate" the difference between "being reversed" and "expiring."

So I got it right, then. But you had to make a dig and then make out I'm the one being disingenuous.

That's because it's part of your DNA. You being sincere in a post is an unusual thing. You are a semi-professional sniper. The number of truths, links, and actual facts you bring into the discussion are relatively minimal compared to your constant distortions and stretching of the truth.

Not that I don't appreciate your contributions.

So, instead of reacting to attack me, how about we try to go through the point I was trying to make again...

I am eagerly awaiting this. I am sure, since I haven't read the rest of your post yet, that this will be filled with truths to rebut any errant contentions I may have made.

A tax cut in a recession is a form of stimulus. It's no less 'Keynesian' than bailing out banks or TARP. It basically uses government to make more money available to stimulate demand.

True so far.

But the point about a stimulus is that it's not much good if it becomes permanent.

So, if it stimulates the economy, it must necessarily be removed or "it's not much good?"

Interesting. Let's see how you buttress that.

It's not much good to use a stimulus in a growing economy. Such is the case with the current spending-based stimulus (which seems to be ending, given than government employee numbers are falling). So why not with the earlier tax-cut-based stimulus?

You support your point with a question. An interesting technique. It's not particularly helpful or any meaningful substitute for evidence though.

I don't see supporting an endless stimulus (and opposing its reversal is indeed doing that) brought in by your side and opposing a stimulus brought in by your opponents is consistent in anything other than partisanship.

It wasn't "endless." When it was signed into law, so was its end.

Like I say, I can see the reason for a short period of tax-cut stimulus in 2001, so on balance I would say I supported them. The sunset was too long, however, and I believe that they contributed in part to overheating the consumer and housing bubbles.

Your opinion, while valued, does not constitute evidence. It also is not definitive: how much do you believe it contributed, percentage-wise? How would you factor in Freddie, Fannie, and many other political maneuvers to lower the threshold for home-ownership?

Great politics ("hey voters, here's a brib... sorry, tax rebate check!"), lousy economics and lousy financial housekeeping.

I just go back to spending. I can show Bush spent too much. How much the tax cuts "hurt" tax collection cannot be measured on a straight-line basis. You, being an economist, know this.

Oh, please! He was the President. Everything that's wrong with the budget now is Obama's fault, according to you.

While Bush had many faults, the one place he winds up looking like he belongs on Rushmore in comparison to Obama is this: leadership. In fact, I would invite anyone to start a thread with all of Obama's accomplishments--on issues he has led on. Healthcare? Nope. Financial reform? Nope. Budget? Nope. Libya? Nope.

In fact, in terms of leadership, the only contender with Obama for feebleness is Carter. Obama could not lead Charlie Sheen to crack.

DEFIANT wrote:Boy you liberals(Rick) just can't stand when we suggest that people keep their hard earned money and spend it the way they want to. When are you and Rick going to quit being so tunnelled vision and think about cutting costs, you two never answer why not, just can't wait to start taxing people.

I don't oppose spending restraint. But I also recognise that if you want to reduce debt you will need a budget surplus - that's paying more in taxes as a nation than is spent. It's an unpalateable truth, but there we are.

Also, despite popular myth, the US is collecting less taxes as a proportion of GDP than it used to, and so clearly the economy can bear a moderate increase as part of the plans to reduce deficits.

"Sorry here's a bribe with a rebate check", that is our money taken out in the form of taxes, REALLY, are you kidding me!!!!

Except that there was a deficit. So in reality the rebates were paid for by borrowing. Not so much your own money, as a debt to be incurred by future taxpayers.

And the tremendous amount of entitlement programs and the bottom 50% don't pay any Federal Taxes, TALK ABOUT A BRIBE, from the liberals, wow, you are just not too bright, are you.

Steve calls me dishonest for parsing his sentences as if he writes what he means. You call me stupid (thanks, RJ and Brad for letting DEFIANT in on how polite discourse should go) and in the same breath make an elementary mistake:

It is totally untrue that the bottom 50% pay no Federal taxes. The truth is that about 50% of American households pay no Federal Income Tax. But as you well know, Income Tax is not the only Federal Tax. There are payroll taxes for a start.

But without more information, we don't know how many people (and in particular, adults) are covered by these 'households'.

Interestingly, one of the reasons that so many moved out of paying net Income taxes (and even getting credits) was the....

Bush Tax Cuts

The main reason that it went up from about 40% in 2007 to nearly 50% was the recession, of course, as it resulted in many people losing income. With recovery will come a reversal of the trend. On the one hand you seem to lament high unemployment, and on the other get all bent out of shape that they are 'leeches' who don't pay tax. They did, lots of them, when they had jobs.

And basically, it is no less a bribe than any other money that the government sends out to people. What is the qualitative difference between:

a) taking money that has been given in taxes (or has been borrowed) and using it to provide

And you squeal when I get 1200 bucks back that I paid in to taxes. There is really something wrong with you people.

I don't squeal, I just point out that the tax cuts added to the deficit (so it's not your tax coming back, it's tax coming from future tax payers), that had they ended sooner their stimulus effect would have been limited to when it was useful and after that there would have been a more sensible position for the Federal budget when the bubble did burst, and that perhaps the bubble would not have been so big in the first place.

I am not getting emotional about this debate, at all. I'll leave that to the people who call me names

danivon wrote:Also, despite popular myth, the US is collecting less taxes as a proportion of GDP than it used to, and so clearly the economy can bear a moderate increase as part of the plans to reduce deficits.

Nice source.

Steve calls me dishonest for parsing his sentences as if he writes what he means.

No, Dan, I think you are dishonest because you intentionally distort or misrepresent what I say and you do so in a manner that leaves only two options: you're an idiot or you're dishonest. As I do respect your intelligence, that leaves . . .

You call me stupid (thanks, RJ and Brad for letting DEFIANT in on how polite discourse should go) and in the same breath make an elementary mistake:

It is totally untrue that the bottom 50% pay no Federal taxes. The truth is that about 50% of American households pay no Federal Income Tax. But as you well know, Income Tax is not the only Federal Tax. There are payroll taxes for a start.

Perfect example. You know what Ray Jay meant, but you had to score points on something he didn't mean. We all know the joys of SSI.

On the one hand you seem to lament high unemployment, and on the other get all bent out of shape that they are 'leeches' who don't pay tax. They did, lots of them, when they had jobs.

And, they don't have jobs because we have a President who has literally destroyed jobs in coal, oil, and many other endeavors. He has done everything he can, albeit I think unintentionally, to decimate industry in this country.

I am not getting emotional about this debate, at all. I'll leave that to the people who call me names

If you'd start taking people seriously instead of ONLY trying to score cheap points (as with Ray Jay), no one would call you anything. However, the truth is you make all manner of factual assertions (as in this post) without proof. We're just supposed to accept it. You also regularly misinterpret what is written in a manner that just cannot be genuine. You are too smart to be that dumb.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, you're not confused. There is a huge chasm from "confused" to "dishonest" and you remain so close to the latter as to be indistinguishable from it.

No, really, I am confused as to why you are arguing opposite things to make your point.

But you also say that you don't think the tax cuts should have been reversed....

I said taxes should not have been raised. However, when passed, they had an expiration date. Since you're being so picky as to be generally dishonest, I know you can "appreciate" the difference between "being reversed" and "expiring."

Yes. The difference is semantic. The reality is that taxes went down for a while, and then went back up. The going back up is an increase.

And you did explicitly state that you didn't think the tax cuts should have been reversed.

So, instead of reacting to attack me, how about we try to go through the point I was trying to make again...

I am eagerly awaiting this. I am sure, since I haven't read the rest of your post yet, that this will be filled with truths to rebut any errant contentions I may have made.[/quote]Oh dear, you really do respond to posts without reading them in their entirety as some kind of 'stream of consciousness' thing. Explains a lot.

[quote[So, if it stimulates the economy, it must necessarily be removed or "it's not much good?"

Interesting. Let's see how you buttress that.[/quote]It's really quite simple. You want to stimulate a weak economy, so that it gets stronger. You don't want to stimulate an already strong economy, it it risks overheating.

Additionally, a stimulus tends to be short term in effect - it's most effective when new, after a while it ceases to provide incentive and becomes part of the 'background'. In order to be able to react later on, you don't want to waste your stimuli. Best of all, is being able to re-use them. Tax cuts as a stimulus are fine, but if you never restore rates to balance the budget, then it becomes harder to use the same tactic again (due to Laffer, the results will be less effective each time).

It's not much good to use a stimulus in a growing economy. Such is the case with the current spending-based stimulus (which seems to be ending, given than government employee numbers are falling). So why not with the earlier tax-cut-based stimulus?

You support your point with a question. An interesting technique. It's not particularly helpful or any meaningful substitute for evidence though.[/quote]And you lack the gumption to notice a 'rhetorical' question. I don't see a difference between a stimulus from tax cuts (increases the deficit, gives people money/stuff) and one from spending increases (increases the deficit, gives people money/stuff). If you know what the qualitative difference is, please let me know.

I don't see supporting an endless stimulus (and opposing its reversal is indeed doing that) brought in by your side and opposing a stimulus brought in by your opponents is consistent in anything other than partisanship.

It wasn't "endless." When it was signed into law, so was its end.

I know, but you've stated that you opposed the end, you saw it as put there simply to 'appease liberals' and that you want to see more tax cuts. So whatever the actual law that was passed said you favoured an indefinite tax cut.

You can see my confusion.

danivon wrote:And you did explicitly state that you didn't think the tax cuts should have been reversed.

I said Bush should not have raised taxes. HE didn't.

What part of that do you not understand?

Oh dear, you really do respond to posts without reading them in their entirety as some kind of 'stream of consciousness' thing. Explains a lot.

It explains nothing, except that you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

It's really quite simple. You want to stimulate a weak economy, so that it gets stronger. You don't want to stimulate an already strong economy, it it risks overheating.

Right, but the tax cuts were already set. It wasn't an additional stimulus. Your argument, in effect, is that Bush should have rescinded his own tax cuts once their stimulative effect had passed.

This is typical of Central Planning. That's the problem now. The government keeps enacting temporary measures (like payroll tax cuts for a limited time). Now, that may stimulate spending, but since the end of the stimulus is relatively near as soon as it is passed, it encourages what has happened with such "stimuli": paying off bills and saving.

Long-term planning is what businesses do. That's why all the short-term nonsense has so little impact and massive measures like Obamacare do so much damage. That and Dodd/Frank were a few thousand pages each, but will generate tens or even hundreds of thousands of new pages of regulation. Those things chill economic activity because they create uncertainty. Every few months, new mandates are promulgated to fulfill the "intent" of the legislation.

And you lack the gumption to notice a 'rhetorical' question.

And you misuse the word "gumption."

Btw, how does it feel to have your intent misrepresented? That's what you do with great consistency.

I don't see a difference between a stimulus from tax cuts (increases the deficit, gives people money/stuff) and one from spending increases (increases the deficit, gives people money/stuff). If you know what the qualitative difference is, please let me know.

I know, but you've stated that you opposed the end, you saw it as put there simply to 'appease liberals' and that you want to see more tax cuts. So whatever the actual law that was passed said you favoured an indefinite tax cut.

Which is consistent, because government is bloated, wasteful, and needs massive cutting.

I didn't say I was in favor of permanent stimulus. Not every tax cut is designed as a stimulus. This one was

You can see my confusion.

No, you say you are confused. I just don't believe you.

Danivon,
I apologize if I mis-represented you, but you threw a few jabs in there too, that's fine and I really didn't call you stupid, I meant as I stated later you don't seem very bright on some of what goes on here in the us under our taxes. I retracted that in the following post and I probably shouldn't have worded it that way.
Fact is the bottom 50% do not pay fed income taxes, they pay it up front but then they get a full refund and in some cases more than they paid in, there is no dispute on that, argue that and the dumb clause comes back in. I will be exact, the bottom 50% pay 3% of he fed income taxes. BTW, your richest top 10% pay 70% of the fed income taxes.
You can't even say "cuts" you say restraint, seems like that word is not even in yours or the liberal base. Lets do REAL cuts and then take a look, again why can't we do that? I don't care what position our economy is in now, let's start cutting the Fed gov't, plain and simple. Only decision is what to cut. I don't agree with Bauska, 20% across the board is not the way, our military already has been gutted by 50% since 1990.

Danivon:

Steve calls me dishonest for parsing his sentences as if he writes what he means. You call me stupid (thanks, RJ and Brad for letting DEFIANT in on how polite discourse should go)

Just to be clear; I wasn't specifically calling for civility (although I am all for it); I just was making the point that you are very bright -- a misguided socialist, but nonetheless still very bright. You are welcome.

defiant

Boy you liberals(Rick) just can't stand when we suggest that people keep their hard earned money and spend it the way they want to.

You know I really don't have a problem with people keeping their hard earned money...etc.
What I have a massive problem with is people using their childrens money, before their children have a chance to earn that money.
Thats what deficits are...
And deficits have been the product of Republican Administrations since 1980. (Steve's theory is that you blame the President for everything that happens in Congress and in Washington. Well Obama anyways. And if its good for the O man it should be good for his predecessors Steve...)

The problem that Conservatives in the US have is that they beleive that revenues are magical. (Share this attitude with the greeks.) That do not come from taxation ..That somehow everey time taxes are cut, revenue will be increased.
Despite the fact at this is a proven non-starter. Tax revenues only increase when taxes decrease if accompanied by a massive increase in economic activity....
Ron Reagan may have sold that fairy tale to the voters, who retained it now, some of them for 30 years. But he didn't live it. He was responsible for the largest tax increases since 1945 when his theory didn't pan out after he cut taxes... Would that conservatives have a complete memory and quote the tax increases as much as the cuts ...

A tax break that stimulates the economy can be permanent. if it stimulates the economy enough to actually pay for itself and create surpluses. If it stimulates the economy but the fiscal result is an operating deficit, then that stimulus must be paid for somehow. And that would be by eliminating the tax break.

This isn't magic. Its adult responsibility.

rickyp wrote:A tax break that stimulates the economy can be permanent. if it stimulates the economy enough to actually pay for itself and create surpluses. If it stimulates the economy but the fiscal result is an operating deficit, then that stimulus must be paid for somehow. And that would be by eliminating the tax break.

This isn't magic. Its adult responsibility.

But you can't continue to increase spending with a tax break you need to cut spending and there is plenty of room to CUT spending. No tax breaks or for that matter tax increases will work if you keep spending like druken soldiers, it has to stop. Period.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

Steve calls me dishonest for parsing his sentences as if he writes what he means. You call me stupid (thanks, RJ and Brad for letting DEFIANT in on how polite discourse should go)

Just to be clear; I wasn't specifically calling for civility (although I am all for it); I just was making the point that you are very bright -- a misguided socialist, but nonetheless still very bright. You are welcome.

Sounds alot like the Messiah, and look how well that's worked out for us.

defiant

But you can't continue to increase spending with a tax break you need to cut spending and there is plenty of room to CUT spending

Your language here indicates that you recognize tax breaks as spending... In a way they are, when tax breaks result in deficits. And deficits are really just your childrens money.

The problem with precipitous spending cuts is that it will probably end the weak recovery. More than spending the wrecked economy is the biggest problem. Especially for the middle class.
If spending cuts simply result in more employment problems, you've ruined the benefit from the spending cut. (Decrease revenues from a depressed economy mean the spending as a percentage of GDP remains the same.)
The reason taxing the well off is attractive is simply because they have been largely unaffected by the recession. Hell, they've actually increased their share of the econmy and wealth in the recession. Besides, if you need revenue you go to people who have all the money:

In October 2005, three Citigroup analysts released a report describing the pattern of growth in the U.S. economy. To really understand the future of the economy and the stock market, they wrote, you first needed to recognize that there was “no such animal as the U.S. consumer,” and that concepts such as “average” consumer debt and “average” consumer spending were highly misleading.
In fact, they said, America was composed of two distinct groups: the rich and the rest. And for the purposes of investment decisions, the second group didn’t matter; tracking its spending habits or worrying over its savings rate was a waste of time. All the action in the American economy was at the top: the richest 1 percent of households earned as much each year as the bottom 60 percent put together; they possessed as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent; and with each passing year, a greater share of the nation’s treasure was flowing through their hands and into their pockets. It was this segment of the population, almost exclusively, that held the key to future growth and future returns

The financial crisis of 2008 was global, but job losses hit America especially hard. According to the International Monetary Fund, one of every four jobs lost worldwide was lost in the United States. And while unemployment remains high in America, it has come back down to (or below) pre-recession levels in countries like China and Brazil

source: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... aved/8600/