Yeah, the subsequent posts generally are a replay of all the same embarrassingly silly talking points that were raised and refuted/rejected, both substantively in discussions and at the ballot box in November. Technically they were rejected about 18 months ago when the GOP agreed to the "austerity bomb" deal in the first place after the debt limit tantrum. Doesn't seem like we're getting a whole lot of new ideas, that much is certain.
Okay, fair enough. Do you think that we can balance the budget without revenue increases? Perhaps the poster has a little more maturity and class than you.
How did I confuse the numerator and denominator? I argued that had GDP (the denominator in deficit/GDP) continued to grow at the historic pace from 2008 on, the current spending levels would still put us at higher than the historical average of deficit/GDP. I already conceded that as much as 50% of the increase is probably due to the collapse in GDP because of the financial crisis. But that doesn't change the fact that spending did jump by hundreds of billions of dollars from FY 2008 to FY 2009 and never came back down.
I don't think that at all. Revenue has been about 4% lower (as a fraction of GDP) since the recession. We should aim to bring that back up to historical levels of about 19%. We should also work on lowering the spending side back to about 20%.
Yes, GDP collapsed in 2009. And spending jumped by $500bn and never went back down. Surely you're not so stupid that you can't recognize that both an increase in spending and a decrease in GDP can occur at the same time.
Um, the spending is because of the drop in GDP. You see when the economy tanks the government spends more to lift the economy. When the economy ramps back up you pay the debt accrued. This is why Bush's tax cuts where a complete **** up. He should have continued paying down the debt instead of tearing a hole in the debt. Surely you're not stupid that you don't understand basic economics and that government spending is a large part of the economy.
I never said that the spending was bad or that it shouldn't have happened. I was just pointing out that spending levels still are elevated, even if you account for the drop in GDP. I agree about the Bush tax cuts, btw. Although maybe they would have been ok, had he not immediately started two wars.
Even if you took out all the costs of the wars, nation building, etc, it would still not be enough to cover the cost of Medicare/Medicaid. Part B was adding fuel to the entitlement debt bomb.
Oh - well let's table the #s for a sec and assume you're correct- and let me guess- you think that after 2009 as the economy emerged from the bowels of recession- all government spending should have been immediately slashed drastically to meet this silly static target of yours... ...say, you don't happen to have worked for the ECB the last few years...?
And, like clockwork, Obama is now caving on his tax demands. The man has all the cards and is still looking to fold. I don't get it.
How so? His current tax proposal generates more taxes from the wealthy than his original proposal in the "grand bargain". His $1.6 trillion proposal from earlier this month was one that not even Dems supported - it was simply a negotiating tool to come down from. His goal has always been $1 trillion.
Wait - what were you expecting them to go up to? I'm not sure, but I thought that was the original target that Dems wanted. Whatever the number is, dividends and cap gains should be taxed at the same rate. It's absurd that they are treated differently when paying a dividend lowers the value of a stock. $10 stock $1 dividend = $9 stock If you bought the stock at $10, and immediately get paid $1 in dividends, and then sell your $9 stock for a $1 capital loss, you should have zero tax benefits or drawbacks. The two should just be treated identically, and a dividend of a stock you've owned less than a year should be a short-term gain, and a dividend on a stock you've owned more than a year should be a long-term gain.
GOP should just extend all tax rates as separate bills and give Obama/Reid the option of which rates they want to let go up (or better, pass them as permanent rates). It's a clean way for both sides to do what they think is right, and reap whatever the political consequences are. What Obama really wants is bipartisan cover for the consequences (i.e. GOP endorsement of tax hikes) http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/18/...-surrender-on-the-fiscal-cliff/#disqus_thread It will be interesting to see Obama sign Bush tax rates into law. Would love to see a journalist ask him why Bush tax rates are preferable to Clinton tax rates. But of course, he will never be asked that.
1. Obama doesn't need political cover on the tax side: the people overwhelmingly support him on this issue. And he's not running again anyway. 2. The GOP's primary goal is entitlement and other spending cuts. What you're suggesting would get the GOP none of what they want. They'd get status-quo on most taxes, higher rates on some, and no spending cuts.
Right but Obama needs the economy to improve. And if/when it doesn't, he needs the other side to have signed on to the plan lest his party get all the blame. Completely owning the stimulus and Obamacare killed them in the midterms. GOP getting none of what they want means the Dems getting all of what they want, and thus all of the blame/credit for the consequences.
And how could they pass a bill bill "extending all tax rates" on January 1 when it is already existing law that they will? Do you have much familiarity with the way legislation is drafted? Bills amends or repeals s sections of the US Code with specific instructions on how to amend or repeal it. The Bill would thus have a preamble, and then Section 1, which would more or less be blank or say something like "no change". Not even sure if such a bill would even be accepted by the clerk, let alone make it through committees.
Not sure what you mean. If no legislation is passed, all rates will go up for 2013. They did the same extension in Dec 2010. http://www.deanmead.com/deanmead-ne...anges-after-extension-to-bush-tax-cuts-end-2/
