Tax hike for wealthy won't kill growth: CBO

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Drek

The POTUS doesn't set the budget.

Obama and the Democrats signed and passed a federal budget including $800B in stimulus spending in 2009...and haven't passed a single budget in the past 3 years. They have been operating on continuing resolutions of the same exact budget, ever since.

Which is why fiscal conservatives should never agree on any spending increases. Too bad it will take 20 years until the economy might grow enough to produce $3.8T in tax revenue (if then).

[Spider]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Obama and the Democrats signed and passed a federal budget including $800B in stimulus spending in 2009...and haven't passed a single budget in the past 3 years. They have been operating on continuing resolutions of the same exact budget, ever since.

Which is why fiscal conservatives should never agree on any spending increases. Too bad it will take 20 years until the economy might grow enough to produce $3.8T in tax revenue (if then).

huh ... with the ass whippen Obama gave the reps and the mandate the American people gave Obama figured you would be in a padded room in a strait jacket rocking back and forth muttering Romney I loved you

[Drek]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Obama and the Democrats signed and passed a federal budget including $800B in stimulus spending in 2009...and haven't passed a single budget in the past 3 years. They have been operating on continuing resolutions of the same exact budget, ever since.

Which is why fiscal conservatives should never agree on any spending increases. Too bad it will take 20 years until the economy might grow enough to produce $3.8T in tax revenue (if then).

A stimulus that damn near every economist said was needed to reign in massive economic failure.

Would you have rather us gone into a full on depression instead of just recession?

Since then the house has been GOP controlled and the senate has had a constant filibuster keeping it from doing anything. Obama has used executive powers to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to it's slowest rate of growth in the last 30 years.

Same old GOP argument where the economy is all Obama's fault, even though he wasn't in office when Glass-Steagall was repealed, massive unpaid for tax breaks were given, entitlement programs were massively expanded (Medicare part D), and two needless and unpaid for wars were started. Clinton allowed rampant horse trading on his way out the door and the GOP took that ball and ran with it over the next six years, running up the national debt so damn high that even a thriving economy couldn't keep it under control. Now they're b****ing about "Obama's economy" when he hasn't added any significant year on year budget expenses. Its pure idiocy.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Explain this. How did Obama ruin the economy? (this should be good...)

Still waiting, cut. I'm sure you have an explanation for your comment? Right?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Drek

A stimulus that damn near every economist said was needed to reign in massive economic failure.

Well, there was quite a bit more disagreement on that than you like to admit, and even then virtually nobody agrees that all stimulus is good stimulus. Everyone has varying opinions on what KIND of stimulus was needed.

The problem mentioned (and you avoided) is that, as was predicted, the "stimulus" level of spending became the new floor. Even Keynes recognized that stimulus spending needed to be temporary. But living up to the caricature, Democrats took an opportunity in crisis to remake the new normal. Now they can't get agreement on anything, (see the 97-0 vote in the Senate on one Obama budget 414-0 on another in the House)

The fact is it's easier for them to live with the trillion dollar deficit bed they made a few years ago than it is for them to vote on a new one.

It's the same problem with any "emergency" government solution. The problem isn't so much the emergency as what becomes the new "normal" afterwards.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Well, there was quite a bit more disagreement on that than you like to admit, and even then virtually nobody agrees that all stimulus is good stimulus. Everyone has varying opinions on what KIND of stimulus was needed.

The problem mentioned (and you avoided) is that, as was predicted, the "stimulus" level of spending became the new floor. Even Keynes recognized that stimulus spending needed to be temporary. But living up to the caricature, Democrats took an opportunity in crisis to remake the new normal. Now they can't get agreement on anything, (see the 97-0 vote in the Senate on one Obama budget 414-0 on another in the House)

The fact is it's easier for them to live with the trillion dollar deficit bed they made a few years ago than it is for them to vote on a new one.

It's the same problem with any "emergency" government solution. The problem isn't so much the emergency as what becomes the new "normal" afterwards.

Wake up. The "temporary" that Keynes was talking about was until the economy gets moving again on its own. That hasn't happened yet. And probably won't for a few more years, although it seems to be very slowly improving. Most economists also agree that this kind of economic meltdown, of the financial system itself, takes an average of 8 years to turn around. And that's only if you take the right steps, which the Right is fighting to their last breath. Take one look at what austerity had done in Europe. And many on the Right, including Romney/Ryan, want that for the U.S.

I guess that's what you get when you live in the "Evidence Free Zone."

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Drek

A stimulus that damn near every economist said was needed to reign in massive economic failure.

Would you have rather us gone into a full on depression instead of just recession?

Since then the house has been GOP controlled and the senate has had a constant filibuster keeping it from doing anything. Obama has used executive powers to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to it's slowest rate of growth in the last 30 years.

The $800B stimulus, which raised federal spending to $3.7T (which we'll never be able to afford), has been locked into the budget every single year of Obama's Presidency. Obama and the Democrat Supermajority increased federal spending 25% in 2009, and it has been locked in at that amount ever since.

So you see, we now spend an "$800B stimulus" every single year.

Originally Posted by Drek

Same old GOP argument where the economy is all Obama's fault, even though he wasn't in office when Glass-Steagall was repealed,

Dodd-Frank does nothing to limit the power of too-big-to-fail banks. In fact, it gives them a larger strangle-hold of the banking system.

Originally Posted by Drek

massive unpaid for tax breaks were given,

What else would you recommend when the economy was in free fall in 2001? The economy has been in the tank (without deficit spending) ever since then. Go ahead and increase taxes now, and you will see the economy contract. Unfortunately, massively increasing taxes on EVERYBODY is the only way to for $3.7T in federal spending.

Originally Posted by Drek

entitlement programs were massively expanded (Medicare part D)

Obama did the same thing. BTW, both actions only serve to increase healthcare costs.

Originally Posted by Drek

and two needless and unpaid for wars were started.

Which the Democrats voted to start, expand, and continue. Obama continues to expand the "war on terror", the media just never reports it.

Originally Posted by Drek

Clinton allowed rampant horse trading on his way out the door and the GOP took that ball and ran with it over the next six years, running up the national debt so damn high that even a thriving economy couldn't keep it under control. Now they're b****ing about "Obama's economy" when he hasn't added any significant year on year budget expenses. Its pure idiocy.

You do realize that Obama will have added more to the U.S. debt than all other Presidents combined right? ...right?

Obama increased federal spending 25% in one year! It was the largest expansion of government in history. Average that out over four years, and the government grew 6.25% per year. The math is easy! How come you can't do it?

My hope is that the House Republicans stonewall government spending, again, for the next 4 years. Maybe 20 years down the line, after 5 more Presidential terms, revenues might finally be able to reach $3.7T, and the federal budget can finally be balanced again.

Here are some facts:
1. You aren't going to be able to suck more money out of business (growth rate through jobs is our only hope).
2. You can only suck an additional $82B (paltry) out of the "rich" (they don't have enough taxable income...sorry!)
3. Guess who you're going to make up that $1T deficit from? You got it! THE MIDDLE CLASS.

BTW, if your goal is to have a wealthy few, with a broad lower class...with Obama's policies, you are well on your way. Congratulations!

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Wake up. The "temporary" that Keynes was talking about was until the economy gets moving again on its own. That hasn't happened yet. And probably won't for a few more years, although it seems to be very slowly improving. Most economists also agree that this kind of economic meltdown, of the financial system itself, takes an average of 8 years to turn around. And that's only if you take the right steps, which the Right is fighting to their last breath. Take one look at what austerity had done in Europe. And many on the Right, including Romney/Ryan, want that for the U.S.

I guess that's what you get when you live in the "Evidence Free Zone."

Newsflash: There is no "recovery".

Adding low wage, part-time retail jobs in place of full-time retail, manufacturing, engineering, construction, and banking jobs does absolutely nothing to boost economic growth or prospects at future growth.

All the job growth the U.S. economy has created over the last 12 years has been outsourced. Until that changes, there will be no recovery. Obama's policies do NOTHING to change that, and in fact, have only increased the rate of outsourcing and contracted economic growth.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The $800B stimulus, which raised federal spending to $3.7T (which we'll never be able to afford), has been locked into the budget every single year of Obama's Presidency. Obama and the Democrat Supermajority increased federal spending 25% in 2009, and it has been locked in at that amount ever since.

So you see, we now spend an "$800B stimulus" every single year.

Wow, you are so clueless.

1.) The stimulus was a ONE TIME expenditure spent over three years. It is NOT a yearly $800bn budget item.
2.) As you've been told before, the stimulus was ~$500bn in spending, and ~$300bn in TAX CUTS

That means for three years, we had an additional deficit of $166bn in spending increases and $100bn from revenue cuts because of the stimulus.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Wow, you are so clueless.

1.) The stimulus was a ONE TIME expenditure spent over three years. It is NOT a yearly $800bn budget item.
2.) As you've been told before, the stimulus was ~$500bn in spending, and ~$300bn in TAX CUTS

That means for three years, we had an additional deficit of $166bn in spending increases and $100bn from revenue cuts because of the stimulus.

Wow...you're misinformed.

Federal spending data from whitehouse.gov:
2008 - $2,982,544
2009 - $3,517,677
2010 - $3,456,213
2011 - $3,603,061
2012 - $3,795,547

Notice how federal spending increased 20% from 2008 to 2009 (due to the "stimulus")? Notice how stimulus spending never went away? Federal spending increased 27% in Obama's first four years.

That's what the Obama budget did. It put government spending at levels that revenues won't be able to reach for another 20 years...and only if you MASSIVELY increase taxes on the middle-class.

U.S. household median disposable income - $31,000
Germany household median disposable income - $21,000

Notice the disparity? It's due to Europe's crushing taxes on EVERYONE to pay for their entitlement state. It's the only way to pay for Obama's 24% GDP federal spending.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Notice how federal spending increased...

So, should federal spending have decreased during the worst recession since the Great Depression? And if so, how do you suppose the economy would've responded to that? I'll tell you one thing for sure, if nothing else it would have given you something else to complain about and blame Obama for...

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Explain this. How did Obama ruin the economy? (this should be good...)

Obama Union Thugs have caused us to face life without twinkies and Ding Dongs ..........

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Wow...you're misinformed.

Federal spending data from whitehouse.gov:
2008 - $2,982,544
2009 - $3,517,677
2010 - $3,456,213
2011 - $3,603,061
2012 - $3,795,547

Notice how federal spending increased 20% from 2008 to 2009 (due to the "stimulus")? Notice how stimulus spending never went away? Federal spending increased 27% in Obama's first four years.

That's what the Obama budget did. It put government spending at levels that revenues won't be able to reach for another 20 years...and only if you MASSIVELY increase taxes on the middle-class.

U.S. household median disposable income - $31,000
Germany household median disposable income - $21,000

Notice the disparity? It's due to Europe's crushing taxes on EVERYONE to pay for their entitlement state. It's the only way to pay for Obama's 24% GDP federal spending.

That sustained increase has nothing to do with ARRA. It's almost all because of increased mandatory spending (social security, medicare, unemployment, interest, etc.) as well as large increases in VA and other defense related spending and small increases in other discretionary spending.

It's so simple even a vapid guy like you should be able to do the math:

Total spending from ARRA: ~$500bn over three years

$166bn/yr in 09/10/11

[Cito Pelon]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Exactly. No one claims that increasing tax revenues will solve the problem on their own, but they certainly need to be part of the equation (frankly, the Bush tax cuts will need to be allowed to expire in their entirety once the recession is over). Dems have shown a willingness to give ground on spending cuts, but GOP refuses to give ground on letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top two income brackets even though poll after poll shows 60+ percent support of that.

Well, the GOP is starting to give some ground. The ultraright-wingers here can't see the forest because of the trees. The center-right of the GOP will actually probably win what they want in terms of fiscal restraints and a comprehensive review and adjustment to the once-again bloated tax code that Reagan was so pissed off about.

Some don't remember, but the bloated tax code was one of the main things Reagan was pissed about - all the loopholes and complications. Reagan used to have a copy of it during his speeches, would slam it down next to the podium, the Fed taxcode printed on paper was like 3-ft thick.

The GOP can actually get a lot of what they want with the simple compromise of rolling back the cuts for the wealthy.

[Cito Pelon]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Wow, you are so clueless.

1.) The stimulus was a ONE TIME expenditure spent over three years. It is NOT a yearly $800bn budget item.
2.) As you've been told before, the stimulus was ~$500bn in spending, and ~$300bn in TAX CUTS

That means for three years, we had an additional deficit of $166bn in spending increases and $100bn from revenue cuts because of the stimulus.

Boehner is having the same problem trying to educate his own Right wing as you're having here. Hopefully Boehner has better luck.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Wow...you're misinformed.

.

You would think "Romney is going to win in a landslide" would have been a wake up call for pricejj and his ilk, but apparently they're still getting their "facts" from the right-wing "ministry of truth."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

That sustained increase has nothing to do with ARRA. It's almost all because of increased mandatory spending (social security, medicare, unemployment, interest, etc.) as well as large increases in VA and other defense related spending and small increases in other discretionary spending.

It's so simple even a vapid guy like you should be able to do the math:

Total spending from ARRA: ~$500bn over three years

$166bn/yr in 09/10/11

Healthcare spending increased 28% and welfare spending increased 66% in Obama's first 4 years. Not to mention the increase in unemployment spending. All of those, are areas of the budget that Obama's policies have directly contributed to. Crack job.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

HA! Go figure! A poll, created for the union thugs, showed people falling for the left-wing talking points of "fair share"...

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by TonyR

So, should federal spending have decreased during the worst recession since the Great Depression? And if so, how do you suppose the economy would've responded to that? I'll tell you one thing for sure, if nothing else it would have given you something else to complain about and blame Obama for...

Is the recession over, or is it not over? Should be a simple enough question to answer.

If it's over, then why continue to run $1T deficits?

If it's not over, then perhaps Obama's policies aren't working.

Technically, the recession is over, so there is no reason to continue running $1T deficits (not that there ever was). So what are you going to do? Cut spending, raise taxes, or both?

And don't say "raise taxes on the rich by $82B". That is Obama's solution, which is no solution at all. Either you agree to pay for 24% of GDP spending, or you don't spend that much...it's simple.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

HA! Go figure! A poll, created for the union thugs, showed people falling for the left-wing talking points of "fair share"...

Not surprisingly, you avoid challenging the numbers and go straight for the ad hominem.

Keep on living in your fact and arithmetic-free bubble - you're doing more to help Dems win elections than the Dems themselves.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by Cito Pelon

Well, the GOP is starting to give some ground. The ultraright-wingers here can't see the forest because of the trees. The center-right of the GOP will actually probably win what they want in terms of fiscal restraints and a comprehensive review and adjustment to the once-again bloated tax code that Reagan was so pissed off about.

Some don't remember, but the bloated tax code was one of the main things Reagan was pissed about - all the loopholes and complications. Reagan used to have a copy of it during his speeches, would slam it down next to the podium, the Fed taxcode printed on paper was like 3-ft thick.

The GOP can actually get a lot of what they want with the simple compromise of rolling back the cuts for the wealthy.

The Bush Tax cuts would solve half of the problems.

A little light reading for my cartoon challenged brethren.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/h...TaxCuts_37.pdf

http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=...2-95f983f1e89e

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42700.pdf

Table 1. CBO Estimates of the Fiscal Cliff—Reductions in the Budget Deficit in
FY2013 Compared with FY2012
($ billions)
Provision Decreases in the Deficit
Tax Increases $399
Individual Income Tax Cuts and Estate and Gift Tax (from 2001, 2003, and 2009)
extended in 2010, and AMT Patch
221
Temporary Payroll Tax Reduction 95
Other Expiring Provisions 65
Affordable Care Act 18
Spending Reductions 102
Automatic Spending Cuts 65
Unemployment Insurance 26
Doc Fix 11
Other Changes (Not Associated with Policy Changes) 105
Total 607

[Odysseus]

The definition of parasite and economics is amazing and accurate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=KnGo6Qm0Wt8