Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Skull Pilot]

and what creates deficits? Spending

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive. I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the fucking government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't fucking rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up - The Big Picture


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?

The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

which has nothing to do with the debt accumulated by the public because of government backed loans

 

[Skull Pilot]

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

AGAIN, Care to point to POLICIES under Obama that created the debt?

HINT Dubya took BJ Bill's 20% of GDP and dropped it to 14.6% AS he blew up spending to nearly 24% of GDP AS he cheered on the Banksters subprime bubble. TRY to think

What does decreasing the deficit by 2/3rds compared to the one the GOPer handed you????

tell me what creates debt?

SPENDING more than revenue
Obama signed off on spending proposals during his terms that nearly doubled the debt

that was his policy

and as I stated a deficit is merely a one year stat debt is collective so tell me why obsess about a one year deficit when the government will just borrow more every year to keep feeding its spending addiction?

Got it, you will not admit POLICY INHERITED by Obama versus policy CREATED by Ronnie/Dubya created debt.

Hint taking revenues from 19.6%-20% (CARTER/CLINTON) of GDP to 14.6%-17.4% as Dubya/Ronnie did was POLICY that created the debt along with Dubya's 2 UNFUNDED wars Bubs



Spending addiction? LMAOROG

OK so Obama was forced to sign all those spending bills by Reagan's ghost

and you seem to assume that I somehow supported Bush and Reagan

FYI I never did. Reagan was a big government hack just like every other republican I have ever seen

Sorry I forget in right wing nut job world, GOP policy dies the day the next guy takes over *shaking head*

Want to share where you "independents" pushing austerity had success ANYTIME in a recession by cutting spending?

Now who said YOU supported anyone Bubs? I simply point out historical facts that POLICY MATTERS and unlike you right wingers believe, it has long term consequences

where have i ever pushed austerity?

and since you keep mentioning bush and reagan in your replies to me like it's some kind of gotcha tells me you like most people are a 2 dimensional thinker

and you have yet to tell me how spending and more spending was not an Obama policy he signed every spending bill he could and ooooh managed to get the deficit down all while almost doubling the debt under his watch

big fucking deal

 

[Skull Pilot]

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???

well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left. I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions

More right wing BS Bubs, I see from your comments who you are


Hint libertarians are farrr right on economics as well as the myths and fairy tales they believe in!


BUT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION???

FYI Not a libertarian either

Just a nut job right winger huh?

try again if your limited 2 dimensional mind can come up with anything

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.

Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped? You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.

They were too high.

According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the fuck should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?

ou think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss? Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!

Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.

correlation does not equal causation

Good rebuttal Bubs

statement of fact unless of course causation was proven in the post which btw it wasn't

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

An Economist Is a Toy Rat for the Fat Cats to Play With

This is all irrelevant. With very different economic policies, both the Reagan boom and the Clinton boom were caused by the only thing they had in common: low oil prices.

wrong, they had many things in common like very similar economies in the same country. Most liberals couldn't tell the difference between East and West German economy so seeing a meaningful difference between Reagan years and Clinton years in America is 10000% impossible!! Only the biggest of fools pretend a president control the economy and conducts an economic scientific experiment for them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

try again if your limited 2 dimensional mind can come up with anything

Plato and Aristotle came up with freedom and govt
Jesus and Caesar came up with freedom and govt
Jefferson and Hamilton came up with freedom and govt
Clinton and Trump came up with freedom and govt

What does skull pilot PH.D come up with???

 

[danielpalos]

Good swerve Bubs, wasn't your original posit though? I guess YOU WILL NEVER BE HONEST

wasn't your original posit though?

What was my original posit? Where?

OH DISHONEST ONE IT'S RIGHT HERE:

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Abso-fucking-lutely.

We should cut taxes today.
We should cut taxes tomorrow.
We should cut taxes next week.
We should cut taxes next month.
Then we should cut taxes some more.

That's my original posit.

Where did I change it? Ever?

What you said:

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Sorry you are a dishonest liar Bubs

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Yes, that's the fucking point.

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yes, if you cut from a high enough rate, the cut pays for itself.
That's the point of my statement.

If a cut doesn't pay for itself, if the cut reduces government revenues....

MAKE THE CUT ANYWAY.

The purpose of our economy is not to maximize government revenues.

Clear?

End the drug war, so we can be, perfectly clear.

 

[sealybobo]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

There's a billionaire on NPR who warns no good ever comes when all the wealth gets concentrated and the gap between the rich and poor gets wider and wider. He said the same thing happened leading up to the French revolution.

My parents had a good life. My dad got a pension, great medical, social security plus he saved. How many Americans in 30 years will have savings, social security, affordable healthcare, a pension??? We see today most people aren't saving.

I also went to college when it was affordable. People graduating college today will be paying their loans off for 30 years.

 

[JonKoch]

It's absolutely amazing how far these right wingers go to protect the Gangster capitalism practiced today, then support the biggest conman (El Cheeto) since PT Barnum *shaking head*

Bad Cop, Good Cop Scenario

It's amazing how far the Preppy Progressives will go to pretend they're anything but set-up men, agents provocateurs, for their Right Wing fraternity brothers. Calling us "deplorables" and then saying they hate the rich tricks us into loving the rich. It's amazing that the majority has been so mind-numbed that they can't see through this charade.

Progressives? Oh right the guys ALWAYS on the right side of history


Care to point to the last time CONservatives were on the right side of history?


How about ONE GOP policy the past 50 years that worked as promised?

 

[JonKoch]

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

An Economist Is a Toy Rat for the Fat Cats to Play With

This is all irrelevant. With very different economic policies, both the Reagan boom and the Clinton boom were caused by the only thing they had in common: low oil prices.

LMAOROG, Sure Bubs, sure. Source?

Reagan DIDN'T have a boom actually if you look at what the ECONOMIC CYCLE he was in showed, unless you meant for the top 1%ers?

 

[JonKoch]

and what creates deficits? Spending

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive. I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the fucking government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't fucking rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up - The Big Picture


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?

The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

We Have the Best Economic Analyses That OPEC Can Buy

Oil went up to $147 a barrel in July, 2008. That's what prevented the banks from slowly and safely getting out of their deals, as they had planned. Both sides are covering up for the petrocrats in order to push their self-serving economic agendas.

GAWD you're a wingnutter

YES, THIS WAS CAUSED BY OIL *SHAKING HEAD*

HINT US CONSUMER DEBT DOUBLED 2001-2007 AS THE BANKSTER SUBPRIME BUBBLE BLEW UP!

 

[JonKoch]

Good swerve Bubs, wasn't your original posit though? I guess YOU WILL NEVER BE HONEST

wasn't your original posit though?

What was my original posit? Where?

OH DISHONEST ONE IT'S RIGHT HERE:

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Abso-fucking-lutely.

We should cut taxes today.
We should cut taxes tomorrow.
We should cut taxes next week.
We should cut taxes next month.
Then we should cut taxes some more.

That's my original posit.

Where did I change it? Ever?

What you said:

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Sorry you are a dishonest liar Bubs

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Yes, that's the fucking point.

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yes, if you cut from a high enough rate, the cut pays for itself.
That's the point of my statement.

If a cut doesn't pay for itself, if the cut reduces government revenues....

MAKE THE CUT ANYWAY.

The purpose of our economy is not to maximize government revenues.

Clear?

Got Bubs, when shown you go back on your original posit, you tend to swerve and lie *shaking head*

 

[JonKoch]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

There's a billionaire on NPR who warns no good ever comes when all the wealth gets concentrated and the gap between the rich and poor gets wider and wider. He said the same thing happened leading up to the French revolution.

My parents had a good life. My dad got a pension, great medical, social security plus he saved. How many Americans in 30 years will have savings, social security, affordable healthcare, a pension??? We see today most people aren't saving.

I also went to college when it was affordable. People graduating college today will be paying their loans off for 30 years.

The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster

 

[JonKoch]

and what creates deficits? Spending

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive. I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the fucking government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't fucking rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up - The Big Picture


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?

The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

which has nothing to do with the debt accumulated by the public because of government backed loans

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DEBT BY THE PUBLIC????? Hey low informed one, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN ANY PRIVATE SECTOR LOANS.


GSE'S HAVE RETURNED OVER 10% RETURN ON INVESTMENT, SO FARRRR!!!!

Grow a brain and read a link

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

 

[JonKoch]

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.

Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped? You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.

They were too high.

According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the fuck should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?

ou think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss? Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!

Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.

correlation does not equal causation

Good rebuttal Bubs

statement of fact unless of course causation was proven in the post which btw it wasn't

Again, more BS right wing OPINION without a single rebuttal to the argument.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you

 

[JonKoch]

STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???

well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left. I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions

More right wing BS Bubs, I see from your comments who you are


Hint libertarians are farrr right on economics as well as the myths and fairy tales they believe in!


BUT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION???

FYI Not a libertarian either

Just a nut job right winger huh?

try again if your limited 2 dimensional mind can come up with anything

I get it Bubs, you're another right winger who NEVER will address ANY points just trolls.

 

[JonKoch]

AGAIN, Care to point to POLICIES under Obama that created the debt?

HINT Dubya took BJ Bill's 20% of GDP and dropped it to 14.6% AS he blew up spending to nearly 24% of GDP AS he cheered on the Banksters subprime bubble. TRY to think

What does decreasing the deficit by 2/3rds compared to the one the GOPer handed you????

tell me what creates debt?

SPENDING more than revenue
Obama signed off on spending proposals during his terms that nearly doubled the debt

that was his policy

and as I stated a deficit is merely a one year stat debt is collective so tell me why obsess about a one year deficit when the government will just borrow more every year to keep feeding its spending addiction?

Got it, you will not admit POLICY INHERITED by Obama versus policy CREATED by Ronnie/Dubya created debt.

Hint taking revenues from 19.6%-20% (CARTER/CLINTON) of GDP to 14.6%-17.4% as Dubya/Ronnie did was POLICY that created the debt along with Dubya's 2 UNFUNDED wars Bubs



Spending addiction? LMAOROG

OK so Obama was forced to sign all those spending bills by Reagan's ghost

and you seem to assume that I somehow supported Bush and Reagan

FYI I never did. Reagan was a big government hack just like every other republican I have ever seen

Sorry I forget in right wing nut job world, GOP policy dies the day the next guy takes over *shaking head*

Want to share where you "independents" pushing austerity had success ANYTIME in a recession by cutting spending?

Now who said YOU supported anyone Bubs? I simply point out historical facts that POLICY MATTERS and unlike you right wingers believe, it has long term consequences

where have i ever pushed austerity?

and since you keep mentioning bush and reagan in your replies to me like it's some kind of gotcha tells me you like most people are a 2 dimensional thinker

and you have yet to tell me how spending and more spending was not an Obama policy he signed every spending bill he could and ooooh managed to get the deficit down all while almost doubling the debt under his watch

big fucking deal

Your dodge noted Bubs

HINT POLICY MATTERS, INHERITING OTHER'S POLICY (LIKE RONNIE'S/DUBYA'S) DOESN'T FALL ON THE NEXT GUY.

But yes Dubya was left 20% of GDP in spending WITH 20% in revenues and Obama was left 14.6% of GDP in revenues and almost 24% spending, nutjobs like you are the ones who were pushing austerity

 

[Tehon]

We need to work on, finding the "weak point" on the right wing

We need to work on good will to man. End the practice of labor exploitation, not find ways to preserve it.

 

[danielpalos]

We need to work on, finding the "weak point" on the right wing

We need to work on good will to man. End the practice of labor exploitation, not find ways to preserve it.

Ok. How about, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.

 

[Tehon]

We need to work on, finding the "weak point" on the right wing

We need to work on good will to man. End the practice of labor exploitation, not find ways to preserve it.

Ok. How about, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.

No. You are simply looking for a way to preserve the current system. You are currently losing that battle and what "progress" has been made has proven to be unsustainable.