CTH Public Relations

• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• China by CO2HOG [August 23, 2011, 12:41:08 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Torture by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 12:40:39 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40600
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 30
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 33
Total: 33

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

I have been telling you so..  But then, it was published in the NYT  Read entire story and tremble


"How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."...

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110297/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy

The shadow seeks to inform

I don't the The Shadow actually read the article.

I think the article lays out the Conservative argument pretty well against the Democrats and the "irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism" of the RINO Republicans.

The Conservatives are the only ones who have been consistently promoted "...the old approach -- balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline (which) is needed more than ever...."

In every case it has been the Democrats and their RINO willing accomplices who have ballooned spending even during times of increasing tax receipts following tax rate reductions.

You can run, but you can't hide.

The Counter can add and subtract.

[not from big spending by the Democrats]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1


Reading the original article one sees that Stockman takes to task the present and recent past face of the Republican party specifically  (emphasis added)  "IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing."  That is not recycled Keynesianism.   And further, "It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase. "

Later on speaking of deficit spending Stockman says

 " The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts". ]    And further "But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion"  Obviously not the Democrats,

And finally,   "By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy. " 


The Shadow always said it was GW's fault.   

Unfortunately the "free lunch" mentality is pervasive at all levels of American society as is the "don't tax me, don't tax thee but tax the man behind the tree  but give ME all I want NOW" way of thinking.  When the boat sinks all in it get wet.

The Shadow has been pessimistic for a long time   

Okay, let me try to fall in line....

10 times should do it.

"What this country needs is higher taxes."
"What this country needs is higher taxes."
"What this country needs is higher taxes."
"What this country needs is higher taxes."
"What this country needs is higher taxes."
"What this country needs is high...
                                                       .....
                                                            ....
                                                                ....

Sorry, just can't go along with it.



Counter says it just does not add up.

What Stockman really said is that this country needed to pay for what it spent (wanted including the wars).  The Shadow agrees and if that meant higher taxes so be it. 

Please explain the following:  Bush tax cuts unemployment up.  Taft's tax cuts in Ohio unemployment way up.  Question do tax cuts really boost employment?

The Shadow would like to know

Okay, let me try to fall in line....

10 times should do it.

"What this country needs is higher taxes."
"What this country needs is higher taxes."


I think you're falling into the trap of absolutism -- thinking that there are categorical absolute truths that we can grasp merely by thinking about them.

2+2= 4 is an example. Absolute truths are fine as long as we aware that reality is too complicated to understand by simply thinking about it.

Any statement of the form "what we should do ..." or "what we need ..." should be immediately followed by a reference to actual circumstances: "what we need in circumstances such as this is ...."

So, if the circumstances are such that the deficit is growing, expenses have been cut then raising revenue may be the rational choice.

If cutting taxes for those with taxable earned income above %250K/year led to big deficits, then it is prima facie rational to consider raising those taxes again to erase some of that deficit.


History shows us it's the rational choice. Democrats always raise taxes on the wealthy. The economy always does better under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations with one exception based on growth of per capita GDP (the economy under Reagan did better than the economy under Carter).

[an immediate and permanent doubling]

If you desire to ask just how much do we need to increase taxes, read this:




"So the IMF is saying that closing the U.S. fiscal gap, from the revenue side, requires, roughly speaking, an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal-income, corporate and federal taxes as well as the payroll levy set down in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html

I don't know that we must raise taxes  --  keeping the rates what they are, allowing the cuts for rates at the top to expire, will be fine in the long run.

Nothing wrong with rates of 35-40% for the wealthy.

That's what Clinton did -- raised the top marginal tax rate from 31 to 39.6% for those earning $250k+ and then rising annually  to cover those making at least $300k+ taxable income by the time he left office

President Clinton averaged 2.6 million new jobs created every year.

Bush and company passed some of the biggest tax cuts.
Result: 
Bush's yearly average has been 375,000 jobs created/year.
Not close to even covering population growth.

In other words -- net job loses over his years in office.

The Bush/Republican Tax cuts and economic policies in general have been an utter and complete disaster.

That anyone would vote to extend their policies strikes me as criminal insanity.

IS, Counter:  What Stockman basically said that the tax cuts were ill advised in view of the desired expenditures.  And the expenditures desired or not by the Tea Partiers are not necessarily those approved of by other segments of the population.

Despite that Chaney said the deficits did not matter, they do in the long run.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/soundeconomywithjontalton/2010958456_cheneys_deficits_dont_matter_b.html

Counter:  People call the social security (FICA) a payroll tax when in effect it is an insurance (as represented in the name) premium that will pay an annuity to you or your spouse and any minor dependents according to the amount of premiums paid.  That a reassessment of the actuarial assumptions is needed is, another question.

The Shadow

Why is Congress' role in this process simply ignored?  While the President has much influence, he depends on Congress to act.  I don't think the founding fathers intended for one person to be so powerful.

Why is Congress' role in this process simply ignored?  While the President has much influence, he depends on Congress to act.  I don't think the founding fathers intended for one person to be so powerful.

 V.O.  What process are you talking about and where has Congress been ignored?

The Shadow would like to know

Congress ultimately decides the fate of the tax cuts, not the President.  Thus, who is responsible for their consequences?  If any branch of government is to blame or praise for the economy, it should be Congress, not the President.

Congress ultimately decides the fate of the tax cuts, not the President.  Thus, who is responsible for their consequences?  If any branch of government is to blame or praise for the economy, it should be Congress, not the President.

I don't disagree with you.

However, the president is the only one elected by the country as a whole. This gives the president -- if he/she retains the backing of the country -- an enormous amount of clout.

Reagan -- because he was so likable -- and Bush -- because he was so ruthless -- were able to expand the power of the presidency.

Remember that the president has the power of the veto.  The Shadow hopes he vetoes any effort to revive the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy.  (He will not)

The Shadow