[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Touch the capital gains rate and see what happens. When it becomes substantially less expensive to live somewhere else, we'll just do it. Think the Swiss, or any other country with a lower tax rate, will turn away this country's wealthy? Not a chance.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but check the "If you are a citizen or a resident of one of the following countries you cannot open this account" bits:

Open a Classic Swiss Bank Account
Swiss bank account internet banking Switzerland bank banking information open set up deposit
Open a premium Swiss bank account
Open a numbered account in Switzerland

Originally Posted by example

If you are a citizen or a resident of one of the following countries you cannot open this account:
Afghanistan, Colombia, Congo-Kinshasa, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Syria, USA.

These are all with different banks (the site is run by Micheloud and Cie, an immigration specialist - basically an introducer). It's coming to the point where you're going to have to dump your passport in order to move to an advantageous location (unless you want to try living without a bank account!). Next to nobody wants to deal with your IRS.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Touch the capital gains rate and see what happens. When it becomes substantially less expensive to live somewhere else, we'll just do it. Think the Swiss, or any other country with a lower tax rate, will turn away this country's wealthy? Not a chance.

I'm curious, what would be the loss if the wealthy left?

And, do you think they'd be happy with Switzerland's true socialism if they're unhappy with the Democrats barely-socialism?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm curious, what would be the loss if the wealthy left?

The top 10% of earners in the US pay 68% of the taxes. Good luck making up that shortfall from the Wal-Mart stockroom boys.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Switzerland's true socialism

You really just called (arguably) the most conservative place on earth "socialist"? Really?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

How much do you want to raise their taxes, besson? Part of the reason why capital gains taxes have to be low is to spur investment. Essentially, a high capital gains tax rate discourages people from taking gainful risks with their capital. If the potential gains are going to be eaten up by high taxes, they won't invest nearly as much. If you want to devastate the stock market, hiking the capital gains tax will help you accomplish that goal. But if you agree that capital gains have to be taxed at low levels to encourage investment, then the people who have a lot of capital are going to get taxed at low rates on their gains. You could then think about a multi-millionaire capital gains tax rate at a higher level, and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that, but I've never seen that seriously proposed in legislation.

I also think that part of your problem is that you probably think the rich don't "pay their fair share" like our Socialist In Chief often remarks. But the top earners pay nearly all of the federal income tax burden. Lower-level earners do get screwed by FICA (which is really just a disguised federal Socialist tax), but after the Bush-Obama tax cuts for the middle class they pay very little federal income tax. I do agree that the very wealthy whose only monetary gains are from capital gains are getting disproportionate advantage over those who fork over large amounts in salaried income, but in general those who are very successful earners are paying a lot to Uncle Sam.

So, why should we keep the Bush tax cuts?

[Railroader]

[Edit:Wrong thread]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but check the "If you are a citizen or a resident of one of the following countries you cannot open this account" bits:.

The idea of opening a Swiss Bank account for any sort of tax advantage has been a joke since about 1975.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but check the "If you are a citizen or a resident of one of the following countries you cannot open this account" bits:

Open a Classic Swiss Bank Account
Swiss bank account internet banking Switzerland bank banking information open set up deposit
Open a premium Swiss bank account
Open a numbered account in Switzerland



These are all with different banks (the site is run by Micheloud and Cie, an immigration specialist - basically an introducer). It's coming to the point where you're going to have to dump your passport in order to move to an advantageous location (unless you want to try living without a bank account!). Next to nobody wants to deal with your IRS.

I already have a Swiss account, had it for years. If you're a US citizen there are still some rather simple, if time-consuming, ways of avoiding those hurdles.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The idea of opening a Swiss Bank account for any sort of tax advantage has been a joke since about 1975.

It isn't for the tax advantage...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, do you think they'd be happy with Switzerland's true socialism if they're unhappy with the Democrats barely-socialism?

Not sure if serious.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The top 10% of earners in the US pay 68% of the taxes. Good luck making up that shortfall from the Wal-Mart stockroom boys.

Sure, but if that'll change if that 10% keep getting the tax cuts they want.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You really just called (arguably) the most conservative place on earth "socialist"? Really?

My bad ... I always confuse Sweden and Switzerland.
(though, I would argue that conservatism doesn't always necessarily align with capitalism. For example, the government of Soviet Russian was very conservative, insofar as it was resistant to change)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I already have a Swiss account, had it for years. If you're a US citizen there are still some rather simple, if time-consuming, ways of avoiding those hurdles.

Ahhh. See, with not being a US citizen I've never had to bother researching those loopholes.

I'd think about the move sooner rather than later mind - just in case the net tightens some.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The idea of opening a Swiss Bank account for any sort of tax advantage has been a joke since about 1975.

The tax advantage is in moving to Switzerland, and you'll need a local bank account to pay your bills there.

And of course, your statement here is very US-centric. Swiss bank accounts do still give tax advantages to people who're citizens of or resident in certain jurisdictions. You live in the land of the free™... ...an awful lot of people live in the lands of the even more free™.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, why should we keep the Bush tax cuts?

Because they're the only source of stimulus offered so far with a track record of success and they generate revenue for the government. I marvel at the number of pundits who've cited the count of debt limit increases as if this isn't indicative of the obvious problem here, having nothing to do with allowing you to keep a little more of what you earn and everything to do with the increasing number of those not earning.

Thankfully, this administration is now pivoting their focus toward job creation. I wonder what they'll do next. We may have to pay $500k for each person to be employed two years instead of $200k for one year of employment at a salary of $55k. Maybe they'll increase the minimum wage.

[Athens]

how is it a source of stimulus? What success?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because they're the only source of stimulus offered so far with a track record of success and they generate revenue for the government. I marvel at the number of pundits who've cited the count of debt limit increases as if this isn't indicative of the obvious problem here, having nothing to do with allowing you to keep a little more of what you earn and everything to do with the increasing number of those not earning.

Thankfully, this administration is now pivoting their focus toward job creation. I wonder what they'll do next. We may have to pay $500k for each person to be employed two years instead of $200k for one year of employment at a salary of $55k. Maybe they'll increase the minimum wage.

You guys have been very quick to analyze the success of the Obama stimulus package, but why not the Bush tax cuts?

I appreciate your answer, it is the best explanation I've heard, and perhaps you are playing devil's advocate a little, but like I said it is only fair that if one is going to scrutinize the Obama stimulus that they do the same with the Bush tax cuts, right?

What evidence exists that the Bush tax cuts have created jobs? What evidence exists that the rich haven't just been pocketing the extra money they have earned rather than putting it back into the economy, as per the theories of trickle down economics? What evidence exists that trickle down economics works at all?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because they're the only source of stimulus offered so far with a track record of success and they generate revenue for the government. I marvel at the number of pundits who've cited the count of debt limit increases as if this isn't indicative of the obvious problem here, having nothing to do with allowing you to keep a little more of what you earn and everything to do with the increasing number of those not earning.

Thankfully, this administration is now pivoting their focus toward job creation. I wonder what they'll do next. We may have to pay $500k for each person to be employed two years instead of $200k for one year of employment at a salary of $55k. Maybe they'll increase the minimum wage.

Tax cuts has a track record of being a failure at generating jobs or revenue for government. On the other hand, Clinton's tax increase in 1993 lead to an increase in revenue and surpluses.

Tax cuts didn't work under Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, or Obama.

[Athens]

and the same pattern in Canada, as with the current Harper government and tax cuts, the current Clark government in BC with cuts and a tax shift. It never works it only makes rich richer.

[OAW]

So the US credit rating just got downgraded from AAA for the first time in US history. Even though there's never been an issue with making bond payments. I hope the Tea Party is happy, because this sh*t is most definitely on them.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Tax cuts has a track record of being a failure at generating jobs or revenue for government. On the other hand, Clinton's tax increase in 1993 lead to an increase in revenue and surpluses.

Tax cuts didn't work under Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, or Obama.

It was Clinton's tax cut in 1997 that lead to the explosive growth in revenue and surpluses! They most certainly worked for Reagan and Bush 2. Did Bush 1 cut taxes?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So the US credit rating just got downgraded from AAA for the first time in US history. Even though there's never been an issue with making bond payments. I hope the Tea Party is happy, because this sh*t is most definitely on them.

OAW

Oh my goodness. OAW, you're killin' me man.

Let me guess, we're getting downgraded because we didn't raise taxes on the rich (defined as those @ $250k +/yr) to spend on programs that will cost $300k/employee for one year (to get us through the election) so we can grow to 8% unemployment and cut 1/4th of what S&P claimed they wanted to see. Damn Tea Partiers!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Marc Faber

Next Week We Will See If Bernanke Is A True Money Printer Or Just An Amateur

QE3 is around the corner.

Marc Faber: "Next Week We Will See If Bernanke Is A True Money Printer Or Just An Amateur" | ZeroHedge

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You guys have been very quick to analyze the success of the Obama stimulus package, but why not the Bush tax cuts?

I appreciate your answer, it is the best explanation I've heard, and perhaps you are playing devil's advocate a little, but like I said it is only fair that if one is going to scrutinize the Obama stimulus that they do the same with the Bush tax cuts, right?

In being fair to Obama, he maintained the Bush tax cuts for the same reason Bush passed them and said as much. Otherwise, there'd be no need to talk about Bush tax cuts because they'd be gone. I've already cited the benefits including 52 straight weeks of record growth. Increases in tax revenue always correlate with economic growth. If you're missing tax revenue, it's because you're missing economic growth. Tax policies that are not designed most kindly toward economic growth will decrease revenue. I don't scrutinize Bush's tax policy because I don't believe it was unkind toward economic growth and I believe Federal budget data affirms my argument.

What evidence exists that the Bush tax cuts have created jobs? What evidence exists that the rich haven't just been pocketing the extra money they have earned rather than putting it back into the economy, as per the theories of trickle down economics? What evidence exists that trickle down economics works at all?

Seriously? Do you really believe conservatives like myself base our opinions on zero evidence or is it really the fact that you've been fed more data than you've ever demonstrated the desire to read?

[ebuddy]

For whatever reason people readily accept the nature of taxation on tobacco, alcohol, or energy usage, but they don't apply the same, very simple principle to labor or capital.

[Railroader]

Some people consider consumption taxes to be the most fair. I am still on the fence on that one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It was Clinton's tax cut in 1997 that lead to the explosive growth in revenue and surpluses! They most certainly worked for Reagan and Bush 2. Did Bush 1 cut taxes?

What evidence exists that they worked for Bush 2?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In being fair to Obama, he maintained the Bush tax cuts for the same reason Bush passed them and said as much. Otherwise, there'd be no need to talk about Bush tax cuts because they'd be gone. I've already cited the benefits including 52 straight weeks of record growth. Increases in tax revenue always correlate with economic growth. If you're missing tax revenue, it's because you're missing economic growth. Tax policies that are not designed most kindly toward economic growth will decrease revenue. I don't scrutinize Bush's tax policy because I don't believe it was unkind toward economic growth and I believe Federal budget data affirms my argument.

You said something along these lines before and I asked for your source so that I can learn more, and IIRC you didn't reply to me.

Seriously? Do you really believe conservatives like myself base our opinions on zero evidence or is it really the fact that you've been fed more data than you've ever demonstrated the desire to read?

Then show me the evidence, please.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It was Clinton's tax cut in 1997 that lead to the explosive growth in revenue and surpluses! They most certainly worked for Reagan and Bush 2. Did Bush 1 cut taxes?

Revenue increase when Clinton raised taxes in 1993. The dot com boom brought a bigger growth in revenue.

Tax increase under Pres. Clinton

Revenue Increase every single year.
1993 1,154.5
1994 1,258.7
1995 1,351.9
1996 1,453.2
1997 1,579.4


Tax cuts for the top earners lead to Reagan's deficit spending.


National debt for all presidents before Reagan: under $1 trillion
National debt at the end of Reagan's presidency: $2.9 trillion

Tax cuts work great on creating deficits. Ask Dick Cheney. Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

Clinton's last year:
2000 2,025.5

Bush Tax cuts:
2001 1,991.4
2002 1,853.4
2003 1,782.5
2004 1,880.3

After 4 years of Bush tax cuts, revenue was still below Clinton's last year. Tax cuts worked? FAILED!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So the US credit rating just got downgraded from AAA for the first time in US history. Even though there's never been an issue with making bond payments. I hope the Tea Party is happy, because this sh*t is most definitely on them.

No it's not. I got the warning not to go with US government bonds before the Tea Party existed.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let me guess, we're getting downgraded because we didn't raise taxes

Actually, that does have something to do with it, according to Bloomberg:

S&P also changed its assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush would expire by the end of 2012 “because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.”

“More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating,” S&P said.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the lack of effectiveness and predictability of American policymaking directly to the recent Republican refusal to consider anything that smelled like a tax increase. If the Bush tax cuts were not renewed last year, and if the recent debt negotiations were part of a $4 trillion package that included revenue increases, S&P would not have downgraded.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Some people consider consumption taxes to be the most fair. I am still on the fence on that one.

You're getting taxed on labor, capital, and consumption under the current system. While the "tax" itself will always be the caveat of a tax policy, no one questions the need for them. The question here is how to collect them and how the economy would react to a major simplification of the code.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You said something along these lines before and I asked for your source so that I can learn more, and IIRC you didn't reply to me. Then show me the evidence, please.

• Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
• The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
• The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
• In spite of a 2000 recession, the attacks on 9/11, stock market scandals, Katrina, and two wars; the budget deficit was reduced 60% - from $412 billion in 2004 to $162 billion in 2007, the average unemployment rate was 5.2%, oversaw the strongest growth in productivity in more than 40 years, and explosive growth in GDP.

Don't listen to the Keynesian ministers of supply-side doom. They've been flashing rich people on the right so you won't see the failure on the left.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let me guess, we're getting downgraded because we didn't raise taxes on the rich

No. You got downgraded because your politicians were willing to put party politics ahead of your country's obligations.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

No. You got downgraded because your politicians were willing to put party politics ahead of your country's obligations.

Paying the country's "obligations" has not been in question for anyone paying attention. The US has not, nor will it default on its obligations. The point of contention is either revenues or spending cuts or a more serious mixture of both. Both sides maintain their position is best for the economy and the country's obligations.

The problem here is that this was set up to be gridlock from the out-set. The President (having offered zero policies or leadership of his own other than stump speeches on what programs he intended to spend the "revenue" on) along with the Senate sat back waiting on House proposal after House proposal to naysay hoping Tea Partiers would politically hang themselves by dealing with the 800 lb gorilla in the room; entitlement spending. The country will receive its revenue when more than 6 million people return to work and when it cuts entitlement spending. The reason we've had to come to the debt limit increase table some 80+ times as the leftist pundits have touted is because of a refusal to address the real problem through countless compromises. Remember, in May there was only talk of the upcoming debt limit increase, subsequent tax increases on the "rich", new programs for spending ridiculous, additional amounts of money on anemic growth, and literally nothing of spending cuts.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I cant believe how bad that graph is! It's so bad in it's presentation as to be anti-informative. It shows tax rates (which range from over 90% to under 30%) on the same scale as the percentage of revenue vs. GDP (which doesn't have more than a 10% spread). That graph over-emphasizes changes in the top tax rate and under-emphasizes changes in revenue. (Which was the point of the people making the graph).

Of course, it would have been helpful to link to their entire analysis. Here it is:
Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax

They have some good points there: they argue that the overall shape of the economy has a more immediate affect on tax receipts than marginal tax rates, and they may have a point there. I think they have cause and effect confused, though: they see that after the Bush tax cuts were passed, revenues increased: they attribute it all to the Bush cuts, without considering external factors that may have contributed (such as average Americans funding a bubble with home equity that disappeared in 2008)

And while they take great pains to remind us that Bush owns the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, they devote an entire section (Myth #2) to the "historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006", as if someone else signed off on all that spending. Elsewhere, they attribute the majority of our problems to the increase in entitlement spending as baby boomers retire. Were we increasing entitlements between 2001 and 2006? (I think so: was that $600 check that Bush sent me a few years back an entitlement?)

In short, they seem to be saying that since sometimes tax cuts are beneficial to the economy, all tax cuts are good. And since government spends money they raise either through taxes or through borrowing, all government spending is bad. Am I reading that right? What am I missing?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

No. You got downgraded because your politicians were willing to put party politics ahead of your country's obligations.

NO, we were downgraded because there is no willingness to significantly reduce debt and spending.

FACT: even if the pure Republican or Democrat proposals would have been implemented, it would not have cut enough to make a meaningful dent in the deficit, let alone reduce the debt.

Don't you think it's ridiculous that our "plan" to cut spending results in the projected debt to go from $14.3T to over $20T ? What kind of lame ass cut is that ? THAT's what S&P saw and punished with the downgrade.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I cant believe how bad that graph is! It's so bad in it's presentation as to be anti-informative. It shows tax rates (which range from over 90% to under 30%) on the same scale as the percentage of revenue vs. GDP (which doesn't have more than a 10% spread). That graph over-emphasizes changes in the top tax rate and under-emphasizes changes in revenue. (Which was the point of the people making the graph).

Of course, it would have been helpful to link to their entire analysis. Here it is:
Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax

They have some good points there: they argue that the overall shape of the economy has a more immediate affect on tax receipts than marginal tax rates, and they may have a point there. I think they have cause and effect confused, though: they see that after the Bush tax cuts were passed, revenues increased: they attribute it all to the Bush cuts, without considering external factors that may have contributed (such as average Americans funding a bubble with home equity that disappeared in 2008)

And while they take great pains to remind us that Bush owns the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, they devote an entire section (Myth #2) to the "historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006", as if someone else signed off on all that spending. Elsewhere, they attribute the majority of our problems to the increase in entitlement spending as baby boomers retire. Were we increasing entitlements between 2001 and 2006? (I think so: was that $600 check that Bush sent me a few years back an entitlement?)

In short, they seem to be saying that since sometimes tax cuts are beneficial to the economy, all tax cuts are good. And since government spends money they raise either through taxes or through borrowing, all government spending is bad. Am I reading that right? What am I missing?

Have you seen any conservatives around here championing Bush's spending? You've certainly not seen that from me. People often forget that the Tea Party was formed during the latter half of the Bush Administration out of frustration with RINOs. I was particularly harsh on "Bush bucks" because the rebate scheme is not pro-growth and therefore did not receive any praise from the article in question here nor can it be shown to have had any appreciable impact on the economy. It was a desperate, foolish move. The intent of the Bush tax cuts however were formed under the Laffer Curve philosophy to spur growth and to stabilize an economy under attack from numerous fronts. It worked, unlike the giveaway. Likewise, those who touted economic growth under Clinton fail to acknowledge the .com boom and his eventual tax cuts that lead to even more explosive growth.

I don't think cause and effect is mixed here at all. It's actually quite simple, clear, and well-documented from the time of JFK. Tax increases on the upper quintile income does not have as profound an impact because they are resourced more effectively for avoiding it. Cutting taxes however encourages behavior that ultimately employs people. No one is saying "tax cuts always work" because of course nearly half the country are paying no income taxes at all and that's not helping the economy. Why? Because they, by nature, don't have capital to infuse. Either the rich can infuse or the government can infuse. I have more faith in the drivers of our economy; the "rich" quite frankly, when the government saddle is removed from their backs.

[hyteckit]

Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 did little.

Bush sold the tax cuts in 2001 as giving surpluses back to the people. Revenues continue to sink after the 2001 tax cuts. The revenues in 2004 and on was from the housing boom. The housing boom to the housing bubble to the housing collapse.

Bush tax cut mythology - NYTimes.com

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 did little.

Bush sold the tax cuts in 2001 as giving surpluses back to the people. Revenues continue to sink after the 2001 tax cuts. The revenues in 2004 and on was from the housing boom. The housing boom to the housing bubble to the housing collapse.

Bush tax cut mythology - NYTimes.com

Paul Krugman!

First of all, he's got some fact problems.

Second of all, does this mean you'll stop touting the Clinton tax increases as responsible for alleged economic growth with no regard for the .com boom?

Ya gotta love charts:

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Paul Krugman!

First of all, he's got some fact problems.

What makes the above blog so special? It's not even addressing what we are discussing.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Second of all, does this mean you'll stop touting the Clinton tax increases as responsible for alleged economic growth with no regard for the .com boom?

Ya gotta love charts:

You are thinking in black and white. Why can't Clinton's economy, revenue, and surplus be attributed to both the tax increase in 1993 and the dot-com boom that started to skyrocket starting around 1997? Why is it one or the other?


No sure what you are trying to show with the unemployment chart. Are you showing I'm right? That unemployment went down after Clinton's tax increase in 1993? That Bush tax cuts in 2001 did nothing to help unemployment?

So unemployment decline and revenue increase after Clinton's 1993 tax increase. Seems that Clinton's tax increase in 1993 not only increase revenue, but unemployment went down.

So unemployment pretty much flat line from 2002 to 2004, while revenues decline after Bush tax cuts in 2001. So it looks like Bush tax cuts had no effect on unemployment, but revenue declined after Bush's tax cut in 2001.

Pres. Obama extended Pres. Bush's FAILED tax cuts, which we know does nothing to lower unemployment rate. The housing boom that help Pres. Bush lower unemployment rate and revenue, burst in 2008. Unemployment rate skyrocketed. The only result from extended the Bush tax cuts is record deficits.

Bush tax cuts FAILED under Pres. Bush and it's failing under Pres. Obama.

[hyteckit]

Speaking of tax cuts and unemployment rate.

Here's the Reagan income tax cuts in 1981 on unemployment

Unemployment rate for the first 2 years

Jan 1981: 7.5%
Dec 1982: 10.8%


Unemployment grew from 7.5% to 10.8%.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

NO, we were downgraded because there is no willingness to significantly reduce debt and spending.

FACT: even if the pure Republican or Democrat proposals would have been implemented, it would not have cut enough to make a meaningful dent in the deficit, let alone reduce the debt.

Don't you think it's ridiculous that our "plan" to cut spending results in the projected debt to go from $14.3T to over $20T ? What kind of lame ass cut is that ? THAT's what S&P saw and punished with the downgrade.

-t

All of which are the direct result of party politics.

[turtle777]

Yes. I thought your comment was directly related to the debt ceiling extension fiasco.

Seems we both agree that that was just a symptom, not the real cause.

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Paul Krugman!

You can't laugh at others while simultaneously citing The Heritage Foundation, an organization that has demonstrated to be deliberately misleading, skewing facts, and misrepresenting data to further their political agenda. They are consistently wrong.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You can't laugh at others while simultaneously citing The Heritage Foundation, an organization that has demonstrated to be deliberately misleading, skewing facts, and misrepresenting data to further their political agenda. They are consistently wrong.

There's only one difference between our complaints olePigeon, I substantiated mine.

[Big Mac]

The Left, as manifested even here, is so out of touch with reality that it makes it nearly impossible to have a rational discussion. They make politics toxic when they can't admit obvious facts against their policy prescriptions.

The Tea Party was fighting for larger cuts, and S&P said we needed larger cuts to avoid a downgrade. The Tea Party and the rest of the GOP relents at a half-measure because that was the best we could get under a Socialist Senate and Socialist President, even though we all knew that this half-measure and illusory cuts wouldn't get the job done. The Administration assured the country repeatedly that if a debt ceiling increase were passed there wouldn't be a downgrade but that not passing one would cause a downgrade. They ignored what S&P actually said. Now the downgrade has occurred, and all too predictably the Tea Party gets blamed for this too.

There is no winning as long as the Left is playing and has some level of control. The Left will simply attempt to corrupt any fact to its political advantage. And it's impossible to have a Constitutional, limited government and rich individual liberties as long as the Left has a substantial share of political power.

[turtle777]

Unfortunately, the majority of the Republicans aren't much better.

Remember Boehner's first "cut" proposal, that yielded measly $5B of cuts in 2012 ?
What a joke.

None of the parties right now have the guts to do what's right.

-t

[Big Mac]

I partially agree. I'd rather have a much tougher Constitutionalist Speaker of the House, but I think Boehner did an admirable job negotiating this last round. The problem is, he only has the solid support of 1/3 of the bodies of the government that affect legislation. He also knows that Republicans will be blamed as obstructionists if they simply refuse to pass anything that the Dems are willing to go along with. He desperately doesn't want to give the same advantage to this president that Newt handed to Clinton.

Ultimately though, I think President BHO comes out of this even more damaged than a few days ago. He got what he wanted most - lifting the debt ceiling beyond his reelection campaign - but despite his repeated assurances the country was still downgraded. If the Republican strategists are half-awake they'll be able to hammer him continually as untrustworthy, weak and dangerous.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You are thinking in black and white. Why can't Clinton's economy, revenue, and surplus be attributed to both the tax increase in 1993 and the dot-com boom that started to skyrocket starting around 1997? Why is it one or the other?

That's what I've been asking you. You attribute growth to Clinton's tax increase and a .com boom, but Clinton cut taxes shortly before the .com boom. Why can't Clinton's economy, revenue, and surplus be attributed to Clinton's tax cut and the .com boom? You claim only a housing boom for Bush's economic growth when in fact there was a tax cut in 2003 as well. So I ask you, why must it be only one or the other?

No sure what you are trying to show with the unemployment chart. Are you showing I'm right? That unemployment went down after Clinton's tax increase in 1993? That Bush tax cuts in 2001 did nothing to help unemployment?

I'm showing that it continued to decline sharply after Clinton's tax cut just as it had under Bush's tax cut and that what you'll see is more explosive growth under the tax cut than any increase in revenue generated from tax hikes. Why? Because small businesses drive the US economy and tax policies that are not geared toward growth will stall new startups, innovation, and entrepreneurship. The key is to create new bases of taxes instead of trying to milk the same people for more. By easing the tax burden, you create new players with new ideas who employ more people and grow the tax base. Again, this is a well documented phenomena since the JFK administration.

So unemployment decline and revenue increase after Clinton's 1993 tax increase. Seems that Clinton's tax increase in 1993 not only increase revenue, but unemployment went down.

So unemployment pretty much flat line from 2002 to 2004, while revenues decline after Bush tax cuts in 2001. So it looks like Bush tax cuts had no effect on unemployment, but revenue declined after Bush's tax cut in 2001.

The tax "cut" in 2001 were rebate checks. We've already been over those. It was a foolish, redistribution of wealth that many conservatives at the time derided as foolish and were affirmed. The tax cuts of 2003 were the actual, pro-growth cuts we needed and in fact revenue reached record highs from 2004 to 2007. You see Clinton's most explosive growth after his tax cuts as well. Economic growth after the tax hike in 1993 was an average 3.2%, real wages grew by .8%, and total market capitalization rose 78%, but after the 2007 tax cut the economy grew an average 4.2% (full percentage point higher), real wages increased by 6.5%, and total market capitalization rose 95%. If you want to see where the debt problem started under Bush, you'll have to look at Bush's failed record of spending. Tax revenues by 2006 remained at 18.4% of GDP; above a 60-year average. The 20% tax revenue increase from 2004 to 2006 constituted the largest two-year surge in revenues since 1965-67. The shift from budget surplus to deficit under Bush can be pointed squarely at Bush having spent $514 billion above projected levels.

Pres. Obama extended Pres. Bush's FAILED tax cuts, which we know does nothing to lower unemployment rate. The housing boom that help Pres. Bush lower unemployment rate and revenue, burst in 2008. Unemployment rate skyrocketed. The only result from extended the Bush tax cuts is record deficits.

Nope, record spending. This continues to be the problem and after massive infusions of Fed dollars, we're only seeing an increase in unemployment, massive increase in the underemployed and in fact those who've stopped looking for work entirely, increase in wealth disparity, an unprecedented downgrade of our credit rating, and just about every economic forecast you can find suggesting another recession. This is not because the government allowed you to keep just a little more of what you earned. Increasing taxes on people who can spend a few dollars avoiding them through tax attorneys isn't going to dig us out of the hole we've dug. Simplify the code, cut the taxes, repeal Obamacare, and unleash the free market. People who employ people are all saying the same things, it's about time we listen.

Bush tax cuts FAILED under Pres. Bush and it's failing under Pres. Obama.

The failures of both Administrations have nothing to do with tax cuts. Trust me.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Left, as manifested even here, is so out of touch with reality that it makes it nearly impossible to have a rational discussion.

Amen.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I partially agree. I'd rather have a much tougher Constitutionalist Speaker of the House, but I think Boehner did an admirable job negotiating this last round. The problem is, he only has the solid support of 1/3 of the bodies of the government that affect legislation. He also knows that Republicans will be blamed as obstructionists if they simply refuse to pass anything that the Dems are willing to go along with. He desperately doesn't want to give the same advantage to this president that Newt handed to Clinton.

Ultimately though, I think President BHO comes out of this even more damaged than a few days ago. He got what he wanted most - lifting the debt ceiling beyond his reelection campaign - but despite his repeated assurances the country was still downgraded. If the Republican strategists are half-awake they'll be able to hammer him continually as untrustworthy, weak and dangerous.

And, this is the problem. All of the "decision" makers are thinking only about the next election and not about actually solving the issue.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, this is the problem. All of the "decision" makers are thinking only about the next election and not about actually solving the issue.

Amen!