Unpleasant Truths: Reagan was for the Buffet Rule - Page 2  

An again, no one would stop Barack Obama from giving all the money he wants to the U.S. Treasury.

The man who declares all things not falsifiable to be pure bullshit wants us all to think about hypothetical presidential memoirs and their hypothetical earnings related to a hypothetical law passed during or starting after a hypothetical second term.

Also shouldn't wants and actual actions be separate? The Obama budget hasn't received a single Democratic vote in the House and Reid has had rulings against him by his own caucus to bring it to a vote in the Senate. The prior vote on his budget in the Senate went down 97-0.

How can you ask us to treat his intentions and desires as something more than a fairytale when he can't even get a member of his own party to vote for his budgets and the measures in them?

Stop being a Leftist religious nut BR. Stop asking us to believe in Obama fairytales. Stop asking us to give your messiah the time of day. We have real issues to address and they involve more than borrowing another couple trillion to hide the lack of effectiveness.

Every Republcan budget plan cuts taxes on the wealthy (over and above the Bush tax cuts), and raises taxes on the poor and middle class. That's fine, according to Republicans. But Obama wants to make sure the wealthy pay the same rate as the middle class, and that's class warfare. Obama has you guys so tied up in knots trying to oppose everything he does that you don't know which way is up or down anymore.

Let's be clear...while we do have a tax problem (they should be lowered for everyone who's paying them and, preferably, eliminated on income)...we first and foremost have a spending problem.

Raising tax rates will not solve the deficit problem.

The spending problem must be fixed.


But, as trumptman aptly pointed out earlier, the rich are only doing what the government has invented them to do according to the tax code. Now the Democrats want to change the structure of the incentives. OK. Fine. However, they should expect the behavior to change with it, and likely not in ways that will benefit government coffers.

I've not read any reports of raising taxes on poor and middle class. I have read plenty of reports of every cut in services being misconstrued as that though. Can you name which increases have been proposed for the middle and lower income folks?


We can discuss if it is "fine" when you cite the actual tax increases proposed.


You are aware that two completely different numbers aren't the "same" just because a pundit, party, or politicians says that they are the same right?


The reality is that folks like yourself know you are trying to get everyone to buy a candidate that cannot run on his record and thus must attack the motives and information of any alternative and messenger. Obama has been dismal. Revisionist history, good intentions, etc. won't change that.

Also as I noted in the other thread, what exactly is Obama responsible for? Why is nothing ever his fault? The Democrats controlled both the House and Senate for four years. They control the Senate and hold the presidency right now. Why is it that he isn't responsible and appears not to be able to get his agenda done? Why is it everyone from Republicans to the Chinese Communists who appear to want to stop him?

MJ that's a perfectly legitimate post, as long as you acknowledge that it's a statement of preference and not math. And its not only a statement of preference, its a preference that contradicts the math, because the single biggest cause of deficits is the Bush tax cuts.

Trumptman - you say you havent read any reports of Republicans proposing to raise taxes on the poor. (And no, we're not talkng about spending cuts, we're talking about tax increases). OK, let's say for the moment that Republicans have never proposed such a thing. Before we go further I want to know if you would be opposed to it if they did propose it. You're in favor of cutting taxes on the wealthy, right? You can't possibly be in favor of raising taxes on the poor. Right?

I consider it a statement of preference to call tax cuts that were left in place through 4 years of a Democratic House, 6 years of a Democratic Senate, 4 years of a Democratic President and were extended for another 2 years buy all three groups to be called the Bush tax cuts.



This chart shows that tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was right around 18% for Bush on average. The problem with Bush is that spending was a bit above 20% of GDP.

Clearly from the chart spending as a percentage of GDP under Obama has exploded rising roughly a full five percentage. Tax revenues have fallen under Obama.

I have specifically criticized the current nature of the tax code and Bush specifically for taking people completely off the tax rolls. I have said that while the Laffer curve is legitimate, that we are not on the side of it that would stop or significantly slow economic activity at the federal level. (That isn't to say that it couldn't be true for certain states like California that plan on raising income tax rates in conjunction with rate increases in income at the federal level. They might indeed get above 50% of all income being taxed.)

So since I am fine with the Bush tax cuts expiring, I am fine with raising taxes on the poor. In general I want a flatter and less progressive tax system with fewer deductions and exceptions.

Elimination of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy did pass the Democratic House and have a majority in the Democratic Senate, but a minority of Republicans filibustered it.


You guys usually don't post these CBO-type of charts; I'm glad you did. I don't see how you can look at the transition from surplus to deficit in the early 2000s and see a spending problem. Taxes dropped below historic levels, but spending never went above what it had been historically. But you don't have to guess about this, because the CBO also has specific data on what is causing the current deficits:


Yes, things went to hell with the recession of 2008-2009, and every economist who isn't a Republican hack believes that temporary spending increases were the best way to deal with it (here's CBO's estimate of Obama's stimulus package's effects). But that spending isn't permanent, and you can see that the light blue in that chart is barely a blip starting next year. The real problem is if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, not to mention the further tax cuts for the wealthy if current Republicans have their way.

That's not quite the same thing as letting them expire. You can't get around the paradox. If the Bush tax cuts TRULY went predominantly to the rich and gave the poor and middle class a mere pittance, then letting them expire should have dramatically increased rates on the rich while minimally affecting the poor. Also it required no effort, couldn't be stopped and cost nothing in terms of political capital.


That chart isn't from CBO. It states it is CBPP "analysis" of CBO numbers. It is easy to say spending went out of control because it didn't stay within the revenues generated. If you have achieved balance and believe that is the way it ought to stay then expenses, which were on the decline, should have been forced to continue on that path. That said SOME of us also remember that Bush had a Democratic Senate for four of the years he was in office. You look at my chart and you see the four middle years were actually level with the Democratic Senate years (two years bookending his terms) showing rising spending. Obviously when the Democrat gained completely control of the Congress and Presidency, the spending jumped dramatically.


It isn't appropriate and honest discussion to simply dismiss opposition as "hacks". Especially when this Cato.org(PDF) ad was signed by 200 economists including a Nobel winner in economics. (That was back before they started giving put peace prizes for starting wars.)

That said again, if your chart is accurate then it is completely IRRESPONSIBLE for Obama to have helped the large orange portion continue. (I'm not saying I'm in agreement with the concept of tax revenues automatically being attributed to the government and thus being deficits if they don't bother to collect them.) By continue I mean the fact that he signed the extension whereas doing nothing would have fixed the largest part of the problem per your chart. The tax cuts would have expired in 2010.

Bullshit.

I don't see the paradox. It's not news to anyone that raising taxes is hard politically, and cutting taxes is the easiest thing in the world.


I'd say it depends on the specifics, and in this case I think it applies. First of all, as the CBO link in my previous post shows, the "hacks" were dead wrong and the stimulus package did help the economy and did reduce unemployment. Second, the idea that creating jobs by increasing infrastructure spending and providing assistance to the unemployed during a recession is some crazy idea that only Kenyan Islamic anti-American socialists like Obama would ever dream up is just another example of how the Rs have had to position themselves in crazy land in order to oppose Obama. It's common sense, it's sound economics, and it worked.

Actually, no...it's not sound economics (though it may be "common sense"...but then common sense isn't always all its cracked up to me. And, no...the stimulus did not create jobs. And, no it did not "work."

The very best thing that Keynesian "stimulus" can do is akin to the Heroin addict taking another shot to get another little high. It kicked the can down the road.



Geez.

Hmm, which carries more weight MJ, your rolleyes or the analysis by the nonpartisan body of economists charged with analyzing these things.

A "nonpartisan" body of liberal Keynesian economists can be expected to arrive at no other conclusion.

The point is that in this instance the raising of the taxes wasn't hard. It was actually more effort to extend them and cost Obama political capital to extend them rather than just letting them expire. The paradox is also that most of the tax cuts didn't go to the rich

Obama right now is wasting political capital trying to get the Buffett Rule the topic of this thread, passed. the Buffett rule is estimate to raise about $5 billion a year. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire according to your own chart raised between $300 billion-$400 billion a year in revenue and the claim, per yourself and others is that it was predominantly from the rich.

How is it the easiest thing in the world to do nothing and get a cool $350 billion a year and instead do something, have that money added to the deficit, lose your credibility, and by the way still have to argue for a measly $5 billion a year instead?

There wasn't even a political cost because all this action, be it the tax cuts expiring or being extended all occurred AFTER the midterm elections.

So based on those facts, I do not believe it credible to say it was easier to do something that gains so little and cost much rather than doing nothing at all which would have accomplished so much more of what he wanted to achieve.

Of course there is that alternative narrative that just so happens to match the facts. The Bush tax cuts were never primarily benefiting the rich and what President Obama bought with their extension was tax relief for the middle and lower classes along with extended unemployment benefits.

Are you serious? The numbers on that link are of a rather wide spread and all of them are substantially lower than what the estimated impact had predicted. To be blunt, it is as if I promised to help you lose 30 lbs, and instead you weigh essentially the same but I take credit for the water weight and big dump you took in the morning.

Are you honestly saying for example that the low range number 300k jobs was what we spent over $800 billion to achieve?

Yeah it's always easy to raise taxes when the Ds do it. I'm sure Rs wouldn't have killed the Ds on this "easy" thing. And now Obama is daring the Rs to oppose extending his tax cuts that are scheduled to expire (payroll, earned income, etc. that mainly help low-income). You think that's easy for them? It isn't, which is why they've already caved on it once.

About the distribution of tax cuts. Look at this, and specifically look at the part called "share of total federal tax change." 64% of the total tax cut goes to the top 20%. More than half of that goes to the top 1%. This is once they were fully enacted. Throughout the 2000s the distribution wasn't as tilted because they weren't fully phased in yet.

Honestly its clear that Obama's Buffett rule is a gimmick. I'd rather see broad reform leading to a fairer system than this tack-on, but that's what you get in an election year I guess.


I'm just looking at the numbers. That low estimate 300k number is for one quarter, and it's for close to the end of the stimulus time period. Many of the other low quarterly estimates are double that, and the high range is triple that, per quarter, for about three years.

And I think it's important to point out that this recession, which started in late 2007, was caused, like the Great Depression, by a deregulated financial system run amok.

So your argument is he's put them in a bad spot through gimmicky cuts that don't really help anything? Gee, that's a surprise.


The top income taxpayers got the most dollars because...wait for it...they pay the taxes. Middle income people also benefited, a fact you'll find out if the cuts are allowed to expire. A couple like my wife and I are going to pay thousands more per year, and we're well below $150K combined.


We agree there. But this is what Obama's entire presidency has been reduced to...by him, might I add. Gimmicks, phony emergencies/deadlines and class warfare.


The point is this: The stimulus failed, especially with regard to employment. There are fewer jobs in the U.S. today then when Obama took office. Official unemployment is higher than when Obama took office. Real unemployment is 11%. And yet we've added over $5 Trillion to the debt. This is not a good case for reelection.


That's completely false. If anything, it was government intervention that caused the crisis. The CRA of the 1970's and 1990's pushed banks to give out loans to anyone with a heartbeat. Democrat politicians helped make Fannie and Freddie monsters, and claimed as late as 2007 that they were in no danger whatsoever. The Fed maintained a overly cheap money supply. This contributed to the housing bubble. When it burst, the whole house of cards came down. So no, it was not "deregulation" that caused this. You might argue that there could have been some additional regulation on CDS contracts and bank capitalization, but it's not like the Bush Administration came into town and threw out all the regulations that governed those areas. Far from it.

Hmm? Obama's Buffett rule is gimmicky, not those tax cuts.


Yes, top income earners do get the most benefit. But I want to make a point here: You say that the top income earners pay the taxes. But let's qualify that by saying they pay the federal income taxes. Poor and middle income people pay a larger percentage of their income in payroll and other taxes than the wealthy. Because Bush's tax cuts were on marginal income tax rates, high income people got the most benefit. But that's not the only way to cut taxes, as Obama's tax cuts show.


Obama says it's wrong for the wealthy to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. Republicans want to cut taxes even further on the wealthy and raise them on the poor. And which one is class warfare?


At least you're honest about what really drives your thoughts on this topic: The election. The stimulus didn't fail, it created millions of jobs and increased GDP by several percent, according to the nonpartisan economists whose job it is to analyze these things. Of course the politicians and media you follow incorrectly say "it failed!" but that's because they're motivated by politics over country and are willing to lie.

By the way, over 1/3 of the stimulus package was tax cuts. Funny how all the magic properties of tax cuts disappear when Obama the anti-American Kenyan Islamic Socialist enacts them.

And maybe this should go into the other thread, but if you want to talk election, this is a perfect example of why, although Republicans think they're being clever by opposing Obama on what would otherwise be bipartisan policies, they're actually hurting themselves by driving so far into crazy land.

According to the latest CNN poll:
Republican party favorability: 35%. Unfavorability: 58%

Democrats 48% favorable, 45% unfavorable.

There's a reason why the American people hate the Republican party so much. You guys, in your decision to oppose Obama and call every mainstream policy a threat to the fabric of America are being forced into taking out-of-the-mainstream positions. And it's taking its toll on Romney, even though I'm sure his true self is far from a tea-partier.

Romney Favorable = 37%, unfavorable = 49%.

And Obama according to the same CNN polls:
Favorability = 56%, unfavorability = 42%

And now they're driving away any hope of closing the Hispanic gap by opposing what used to be bipartisan policy on immigration.

Who knows, pretty soon Republicans will probably be opposing contraception, opposing fair pay for women laws, and maybe even try to pass laws requiring doctors to probe women's vaginas. You thought the gender gap was bad before?

You keep repeating this in order to promote the illusion that a flawed analysis by a left-leaning collection of Keynesian economists* could actually give an impartial analysis of these events.

*I was referring to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to which you originally referred. But the case doesn't really change...if anything it might only be worse when referring to the CBO which isn't non-partisan...if anything it is a bi-partisan collection of government Keynesian economists. This statement alone ought to give us pause: "CBO's new report closely resembles its initial estimates from March 2009, shortly after Obama signed the bill into law."

P.S. GDP is not the best measure of success here partly because GDP includes government spending, so it would be easy to make GDP go up by the government spending more money and even the unemployment rate is a fucking rigged number as has been illustrated in other posts in this forum. Finally, the article you linked to has the CBO implying that all of the improvement in employment and GDP is attributable to the "stimulus."

OK, so I went a little crazy on that last post.

Yes...that's a good idea. Let's use bullshit highly subjective "measurements" like "Gross National Happiness."

How very...ummm...scientific.

Is it even possible to find an economic report - an actual economic analysis, and not a political column - that argues the stimulus didn't have a positive effect? Not just the CBO but every independent analysis I've seen shows that the stimulus has been positive for the economy. From Politifact's report saying that Republicans who say "the stimulus hasn't created one job" get a "pants on fire" rating:


And that's from a report only part of the way into the stimulus.

All the critics can point to is that job losses, though improving, continued for a while after the stimulus. It's hardly a good argument to say "But the economy was SO crappy under Bush that it took a whole year to dig ourselves out!"

Sure, it was a helluva recession. But right around the start of the stimulus package - perhaps it was just a coincidence - job losses slowed, and then turned into job gains by 2010.

I'm not saying happiness shouldn't be a priority. In fact I'd say it is basically everyone's priority though we all measure it differently and subjectively.

I question the ability to objectively measure it any way that could amount a useful "Gross National Happiness" index.

No. Keynesian economics is a very specific school of economic thought favored by politicians because it can be used to rationalize expanding government at almost every turn.



Ohhh...I don't doubt it did something.

Yes. That's exactly what I am. Because you say so.

Whatever.

Of course. Maybe less liquor for you?

It's one thing to characterize genuinely out-of-the-mainstream groups or views as leftist extremists - say, 911 conspiracists. But when you find yourself in the position that every mainstream group and idea has to be called leftist extremist in order to protect your views, it shoud be a sign there's something wrong.

Yeah...so I never called anyone "leftist extremist"...those are your words.

The really funny thing here is BR accusing me of arguments from authority while ignoring yours.

But I've come to expect such things from BR.

P.S. I assume we should consult you on where the line is on "genuinely out-of-the-mainstream groups or views" vs. "mainstream groups or views".

The stimulus cost $800 billion. Unemployment is still higher than it was when Obama took office. Fewer Americans are working today then when Obama took office. 200,000 jobs per month is treading water. Now, tell me...how did it work again?

What's most intriguing about the Democrat's championing of the "Buffett rule" and generally pushing to make sure the rich pay tax rates higher than the middle and lower classes is the complete absence from the discussion of any suggestion of lowering tax rates for the middle and lower income levels to be less than those paid by the rich.

I think this is rather telling.