Can you pay down the debt WITHOUT growing the "economy"?

[Quantum Windbag]

So, you are then, quite happy that the deficit is decreasing faster now than in decades. And we all know that you must be happy to see the cbo projections showing more of the same in coming years.
If you were aware of economic history, you would not find a time in our history that decreasing taxes and gov spending has ever helped a bad economy. Nor would you ever see a time when the deficit, and the national debt, ever got a lot better when unemployment was bad. And you would know you have never seen a time when unemployment was high and the deficit, or the national debt, for that matter, ever improved. (No, me boy, the national debt does not often decrease in absolute terms, but rather in relation to gnp).
And, you must be happy about current tax rates, which have gone down under this president to lower than at any time since the early 1950's. I am sure the current admin would welcome your thanks.

So, you must really be happy. Or, perhaps you just do not pay attention to the facts. Do you simply prefer your agenda??

Excuse me? Have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years? Do I really need to explain, again, why your argument is absurd? You really need to stop reading that same stupid blog post again and again.

No argument, me poor ignorant tool. Just truths. Perhaps you can provide proof of taxes being higher today than in the past 50 years, me boy.
Or perhaps you have some proof that the economy. when employment was high, ever, ever, ever benefited from tax decreases or spending decreases.

Your stupid statement is of no value. Your opinion is of no value. You are a dipshit. And a tool. So, do you have some proof, or are you simply posting blather??

Cmon, me boy. Prove me wrong. Dipshit.

Revenue is higher, but don't let facts change your mind.

 

[Rshermr]

Excuse me? Have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years? Do I really need to explain, again, why your argument is absurd? You really need to stop reading that same stupid blog post again and again.

No argument, me poor ignorant tool. Just truths. Perhaps you can provide proof of taxes being higher today than in the past 50 years, me boy.
Or perhaps you have some proof that the economy. when employment was high, ever, ever, ever benefited from tax decreases or spending decreases.

Your stupid statement is of no value. Your opinion is of no value. You are a dipshit. And a tool. So, do you have some proof, or are you simply posting blather??

Cmon, me boy. Prove me wrong. Dipshit.

Revenue is higher, but don't let facts change your mind.

That has NOTHING to do with my arguments. You stated that revenues are higher, which should be obvious to anyone who knows that we have been recovering from the great republican recession of 2008. Even though, me poor ignorant con tool, tax rates are lower.
Are you able to make an argument with some proof. So far, not even an argument. I agree that revenues are higher. Dipshit.

 

[RKMBrown]

Libs don't want more revenue they want higher tax rates for the rich, cause that is what their handlers told them they needed to have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No argument, me poor ignorant tool. Just truths. Perhaps you can provide proof of taxes being higher today than in the past 50 years, me boy.
Or perhaps you have some proof that the economy. when employment was high, ever, ever, ever benefited from tax decreases or spending decreases.

Your stupid statement is of no value. Your opinion is of no value. You are a dipshit. And a tool. So, do you have some proof, or are you simply posting blather??

Cmon, me boy. Prove me wrong. Dipshit.

Revenue is higher, but don't let facts change your mind.

That has NOTHING to do with my arguments. You stated that revenues are higher, which should be obvious to anyone who knows that we have been recovering from the great republican recession of 2008. Even though, me poor ignorant con tool, tax rates are lower.
Are you able to make an argument with some proof. So far, not even an argument. I agree that revenues are higher. Dipshit.

It has every thing to do with reality though, which is why you don't like it when people point it out.

 

[Rshermr]

Revenue is higher, but don't let facts change your mind.

That has NOTHING to do with my arguments. You stated that revenues are higher, which should be obvious to anyone who knows that we have been recovering from the great republican recession of 2008. Even though, me poor ignorant con tool, tax rates are lower.
Are you able to make an argument with some proof. So far, not even an argument. I agree that revenues are higher. Dipshit.

It has every thing to do with reality though, which is why you don't like it when people point it out.

So, again, you are quite happy with Obama since he has administered an increase in employment and increased profitability, resulting in greater tax revenues. Great accomplishment. You should congratulate him personally. Unless, of course, you would prefer higher unemployment and lower profitability. Oh.....Of course, you would.

 

[expat_panama]

...When your taxes are lowered, so is everyone elses. Everyone then has more money for the same amount of goods being produced. For a few months, output may be stimulated but shortly, prices just rise to consume all monies.

This is what's great about Macroeconomics-- the idea is that when costs (=taxes) are lowered, not only do consumers have more money to buy, but producers see lower costs and respond by producing more products at lower prices. It's a positive feedback loop AKA "virtuous circle".

 

[Rebelitarian]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

The Federal Reserve system is designed to maintain debt slavery.

The Money Masters.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H56FUHgqRNE]The Money Masters - Full-Length (3hrs 19m) - YouTube[/ame]


The solution is secede and issue debt free money like the nation of Guernsey.

Right now the Globalists are going to implode America like they did with Argentina.

John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqIHKWd9rSc]John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"Extended Interview 2008 - YouTube[/ame]

The problem is educating Americans to all this !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Toro]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

The Federal Reserve system is designed to maintain debt slavery.

The Money Masters.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H56FUHgqRNE]The Money Masters - Full-Length (3hrs 19m) - YouTube[/ame]


The solution is secede and issue debt free money like the nation of Guernsey.

Right now the Globalists are going to implode America like they did with Argentina.

John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqIHKWd9rSc]John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"Extended Interview 2008 - YouTube[/ame]

The problem is educating Americans to all this !!!!!!!!!!!!

Your post is silly.

And factually incorrect. For example, Guernsey uses the pound and is in a currency union with the UK. IOW, it's fiat like all the rest.

Guernsey pound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That has NOTHING to do with my arguments. You stated that revenues are higher, which should be obvious to anyone who knows that we have been recovering from the great republican recession of 2008. Even though, me poor ignorant con tool, tax rates are lower.
Are you able to make an argument with some proof. So far, not even an argument. I agree that revenues are higher. Dipshit.

It has every thing to do with reality though, which is why you don't like it when people point it out.

So, again, you are quite happy with Obama since he has administered an increase in employment and increased profitability, resulting in greater tax revenues. Great accomplishment. You should congratulate him personally. Unless, of course, you would prefer higher unemployment and lower profitability. Oh.....Of course, you would.

I didn't mention Obama, did I?

But, since you brought up the lies, unemployment still hasn't got back to where it was when he got into office even after 5 years of Obanomics. I haven't seen any statistics on productivity, so I will just assume you got that right just so I can ask, so what? What, exactly, did Obama do to increase productivity? Unless you are going to argue that he is omnipotent, you can't give him credit for things that are totally outside his control.

 

[oldfart]

This is what's great about Macroeconomics-- the idea is that when costs (=taxes) are lowered, not only do consumers have more money to buy, but producers see lower costs and respond by producing more products at lower prices. It's a positive feedback loop AKA "virtuous circle".

Whoever tried to teach you economics failed miserably. Please explain how lowering income taxes lowers cost of production.

 

[oldfart]

Is the tax burden the tax rate or the amount of taxes paid? Just sayin, I don't get how the tax rate is the actual share of burden. But then I'm just a math major what would I know about these monkey charts.

Piketty & Saez used raw IRS data provided by the Statistics of Income Division for their computations. They divide average net tax revenues collected by the average modified income for each quintile. As a math major, I assume you know what a quintile is?

And I guess you call them "monkey charts" because in your world of people too lazy to look up the methodological notes for anything you don't agree with, ignorance is superior to honesty.

 

[oldfart]

Is the tax burden the tax rate or the amount of taxes paid? Just sayin, I don't get how the tax rate is the actual share of burden. But then I'm just a math major what would I know about these monkey charts.

It taint either, it is a term somebody made up to make it look like the rich aren't paying their "fair share."

Nobody made up the term "incidence of taxation". It goes back at least to the "Wealth of Nations" and there is a large body of economic literature on it. Your comment only shows ignorance and a penchant for "cuteness" which does not reflect well on you.

I'd be more impressed if you asked questions when you encounter concepts that you are not familiar with.

 

[rdean]

It has every thing to do with reality though, which is why you don't like it when people point it out.

So, again, you are quite happy with Obama since he has administered an increase in employment and increased profitability, resulting in greater tax revenues. Great accomplishment. You should congratulate him personally. Unless, of course, you would prefer higher unemployment and lower profitability. Oh.....Of course, you would.

I didn't mention Obama, did I?

But, since you brought up the lies, unemployment still hasn't got back to where it was when he got into office even after 5 years of Obanomics. I haven't seen any statistics on productivity, so I will just assume you got that right just so I can ask, so what? What, exactly, did Obama do to increase productivity? Unless you are going to argue that he is omnipotent, you can't give him credit for things that are totally outside his control.

What is "Obanomics"? We know what Republican Economic Policy is.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

Report: U.S. has lost 2.4M jobs to China from 2001 to 2008 - The Hill

The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation | Vanity Fair

Obama's Judicial Nominees Blocked On All Sides By Senate Republicans

Bills Republicans Have Blocked Since President Obama Took Office

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is what's great about Macroeconomics-- the idea is that when costs (=taxes) are lowered, not only do consumers have more money to buy, but producers see lower costs and respond by producing more products at lower prices. It's a positive feedback loop AKA "virtuous circle".

Whoever tried to teach you economics failed miserably. Please explain how lowering income taxes lowers cost of production.

Whoever taught you to read failed miserably, he didn't say that lowering income taxes lowers cost of production.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is the tax burden the tax rate or the amount of taxes paid? Just sayin, I don't get how the tax rate is the actual share of burden. But then I'm just a math major what would I know about these monkey charts.

It taint either, it is a term somebody made up to make it look like the rich aren't paying their "fair share."

Nobody made up the term "incidence of taxation". It goes back at least to the "Wealth of Nations" and there is a large body of economic literature on it. Your comment only shows ignorance and a penchant for "cuteness" which does not reflect well on you.

I'd be more impressed if you asked questions when you encounter concepts that you are not familiar with.

Somebody made up every singe term in the English language.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, again, you are quite happy with Obama since he has administered an increase in employment and increased profitability, resulting in greater tax revenues. Great accomplishment. You should congratulate him personally. Unless, of course, you would prefer higher unemployment and lower profitability. Oh.....Of course, you would.

I didn't mention Obama, did I?

But, since you brought up the lies, unemployment still hasn't got back to where it was when he got into office even after 5 years of Obanomics. I haven't seen any statistics on productivity, so I will just assume you got that right just so I can ask, so what? What, exactly, did Obama do to increase productivity? Unless you are going to argue that he is omnipotent, you can't give him credit for things that are totally outside his control.

What is "Obanomics"? We know what Republican Economic Policy is.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

Report: U.S. has lost 2.4M jobs to China from 2001 to 2008 - The Hill

The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation | Vanity Fair

Obama's Judicial Nominees Blocked On All Sides By Senate Republicans

Bills Republicans Have Blocked Since President Obama Took Office

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd0fVf5CsCc"]Newt Admits to GOP Conspiracy to Block President Obama's Policies[/ame]

It is a bit like rdeanonomics, only dumber.

 

[RKMBrown]

Is the tax burden the tax rate or the amount of taxes paid? Just sayin, I don't get how the tax rate is the actual share of burden. But then I'm just a math major what would I know about these monkey charts.

Piketty & Saez used raw IRS data provided by the Statistics of Income Division for their computations. They divide average net tax revenues collected by the average modified income for each quintile. As a math major, I assume you know what a quintile is?

And I guess you call them "monkey charts" because in your world of people too lazy to look up the methodological notes for anything you don't agree with, ignorance is superior to honesty.

No offense oldfart, but the chart shown above does not just show quintiles of income earners. Everyone knows the bottom 51% don't pay any federal income tax after they get their checks back. Everyone can see this chart has 7 bars not 5.

You can't believe everything you read. This graph is crap.

It is designed to add two "extra" bars to the quin-tile and focus on those as if they were a part of the quin-tile. They are counting the 80% group 3 times in this graph. Once for 80-100 another time for 99-100 and yet a third time for 99.9-100. It's like one of those cig commercials with the chick up top and the warning at the bottom. The truth in this chart is that the bottom two bars are at zero but the "zero" line is "absent" The other truth in this chart is that the two middle class income groups (40-80) and the upper class income group (80-100) are carrying the entire burden for the lower two income groups (0-40%).

This is the real quintile chart:

 

[rdean]

Is the tax burden the tax rate or the amount of taxes paid? Just sayin, I don't get how the tax rate is the actual share of burden. But then I'm just a math major what would I know about these monkey charts.

Piketty & Saez used raw IRS data provided by the Statistics of Income Division for their computations. They divide average net tax revenues collected by the average modified income for each quintile. As a math major, I assume you know what a quintile is?

And I guess you call them "monkey charts" because in your world of people too lazy to look up the methodological notes for anything you don't agree with, ignorance is superior to honesty.

No offense oldfart, but the chart shown above does not just show quintiles of income earners. Everyone knows the bottom 51% don't pay any federal income tax after they get their checks back. Everyone can see this chart has 7 bars not 5.

You can't believe everything you read. This graph is crap.

It is designed to add two "extra" bars to the quin-tile and focus on those as if they were a part of the quin-tile. They are counting the 80% group 3 times in this graph. Once for 80-100 another time for 99-100 and yet a third time for 99.9-100. It's like one of those cig commercials with the chick up top and the warning at the bottom. The truth in this chart is that the bottom two bars are at zero but the "zero" line is "absent" The other truth in this chart is that the two middle class income groups (40-80) and the upper class income group (80-100) are carrying the entire burden for the lower two income groups (0-40%).

This is the real quintile chart:

So you are saying the wealthiest Americans pay less than 15% and everyone else 5% or less? You sure?

 

[itfitzme]

...When your taxes are lowered, so is everyone elses. Everyone then has more money for the same amount of goods being produced. For a few months, output may be stimulated but shortly, prices just rise to consume all monies.

This is what's great about Macroeconomics-- the idea is that when costs (=taxes) are lowered, not only do consumers have more money to buy, but producers see lower costs and respond by producing more products at lower prices. It's a positive feedback loop AKA "virtuous circle".

True, in tue short run. This is the issue with the thirty plus years of lowering taxes and increasing revenue. They are temporary impulses. After a couple of economic cycles, the effect dies down. It has worked, up till 2000, because there was plenty of excess labor still untapped.

 

[itfitzme]

...When your taxes are lowered, so is everyone elses. Everyone then has more money for the same amount of goods being produced. For a few months, output may be stimulated but shortly, prices just rise to consume all monies.

This is what's great about Macroeconomics-- the idea is that when costs (=taxes) are lowered, not only do consumers have more money to buy, but producers see lower costs and respond by producing more products at lower prices. It's a positive feedback loop AKA "virtuous circle".

BTW , taxes are not a cost. Taxes are a percentage of earnings (for businesses).

Earnings are after costs. Hence ther terms EBT and EBIT.

Costs come out of revenues. Often, for companies, there are no earnings so no taxes.