Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommittee’

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

I've been hearing a lot lately about how if we imposed a 100% income tax on the top 1% (a ridiculous idea), it would only raise 1.4 trillion, enough fund the government for 5 months. Well, if you cut 100% of our welfare spending (an equally ridiculous idea) you get about 2/3rds of that number. We have a deficit problem that goes far beyond spending issues. Tax reform is going to have to be part of the solution.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

apdst said:

The only reason Republican could bad numbers, now, is because they're not working hard enough to stop the silly **** the Dems are pulling.

Click to expand...

ROFLMAOooooooooooo......uhhh NO....their numbers are bad because america sees who the republicans are protecting at the expense of everyone else....its the GOP that has this country at a standstill...

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

Helix said:

any real budget solution is going to include both spending cuts and tax increases. it's as simple as that.

Click to expand...

and the tax increases will be effective ones, not nominal ones. everyone up there knows this - Democrats are just playing to their base.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

Most of you have no real understanding of the economy. And that includes basically everyone here saying that cuts are the answer.

If we went with cuts, contrary to your asinine baseless beliefs, we WILL see another recession. The US is growing at barely 1%. You start reducing aggregate demand and the associated spending multipliers that stem from it and we are likely to see another recession. Growth is a partial reason why tax revenues are keeping the deficit from getting bigger. You inflict an artificial recession and the deficit will expand especially as automatic stabilizers kick in as unemployment rises. Revenues will fall and outflows will increase resulting in a bigger debt problem. You say you want to fix the economy, but your solution makes it far worse. Monetary policy right now is at one of the all time lows, removing that as a primer to the pump. And before Cpwill posts that twice refuted bull**** study again about how cuts actually fix the economy, his article ignores all impacts other than fiscal policy which effectively argues that economic data exists in isolated boxes which is patently retarded.

As much as you complain about high taxes, the US actually has one of the lower effective marginal rates in the Industrial World. Furthermore, Corporate tax rates, effective are lower than many places in Europe. If you don't know what effective verse statutory rates are, don't reply because I'm going to be a total asshole to you if you screw it up.

Considering how the rest of the world is still lending to the US at abnormally low rates DESPITE a ratings cut, the debt isn't an immediate issue. The lackluster growth is. No one ever grew their business by destroying it. That said, any spending MUST be targeted in growth areas.

You people are demanding a recession as the cure to a deficit problem. That is completely idiotic.

1Perry said:

Any proposal with more spending will be rejected as it should.

Click to expand...

In a budget wher 40% of spending is with borrowed money, increased taxes do not mean increased spending. If you're refering to the "baseline" projections as a growth in spending, that is a fair point, as it should be indexed to inflation, but otherwise remain constant. Are you with the GOP candikdates who have stated that they would refuse a 10:1 cut:tax ratio in a hypothetical plan?

obvious Child said:

Most of you have no real understanding of the economy. And that includes basically everyone here saying that cuts are the answer.

If we went with cuts, contrary to your asinine baseless beliefs, we WILL see another recession. The US is growing at barely 1%. You start reducing aggregate demand and the associated spending multipliers that stem from it and we are likely to see another recession. Growth is a partial reason why tax revenues are keeping the deficit from getting bigger. You inflict an artificial recession and the deficit will expand especially as automatic stabilizers kick in as unemployment rises. Revenues will fall and outflows will increase resulting in a bigger debt problem. You say you want to fix the economy, but your solution makes it far worse. Monetary policy right now is at one of the all time lows, removing that as a primer to the pump. And before Cpwill posts that twice refuted bull**** study again about how cuts actually fix the economy, his article ignores all impacts other than fiscal policy which effectively argues that economic data exists in isolated boxes which is patently retarded.

As much as you complain about high taxes, the US actually has one of the lower effective marginal rates in the Industrial World. Furthermore, Corporate tax rates, effective are lower than many places in Europe. If you don't know what effective verse statutory rates are, don't reply because I'm going to be a total asshole to you if you screw it up.

Considering how the rest of the world is still lending to the US at abnormally low rates DESPITE a ratings cut, the debt isn't an immediate issue. The lackluster growth is. No one ever grew their business by destroying it. That said, any spending MUST be targeted in growth areas.

You people are demanding a recession as the cure to a deficit problem. That is completely idiotic.

Click to expand...

You are an articulate Keynesian... but I would contend that interest rates do not reflect any sort of faith in the US ability to repay, only that 1. Treasuries are safer than EU debt, and 2. the treasury market is the only one deep enough to absorb safe-haven cash from China, thus driving yields down because of the size of the assets for sale, not their underlying value. While I'm not with the slash-and-burn cutters, I would agree with their assessment that the US debt trajectory is deadly serious and artificially low rates have lulled fiscal and monetary policy makers into a false sense of security.

Perhaps we should not slash 3T from the budget, but spending increases should be solely by PAYGO rules.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

No plan coming out of Washington is going to do any good because it's a spending problem, not a cash flow problem. First, all programs need to be either cut AND forced to become efficient or eliminated, this means an end to baseline budgeting in lieu of actual budgeting that every household and business must comply with and follow. There is a mentality that awards waste by cutting budgets only if one comes in under budget, this is why many departments purposefully overspend. By all programs I mean ALL, not some, ALL.

There were reports of a certain female senator a little while back granting spending to a military contractor for new M16 type carbines, these replace the perfectly functional models before with what many of my veteran buddies have called "worthless, no stopping power, jamming pieces of ****", also the military was working on certain "make work" projects that would ultimately be canceled such as the "stealth boat" while canceling usable items such as the B2 stealth, F-17 stealth fighter, and the F22 Raptor. This is just military mistakes. What about social program fraud? Well that is rampant, I am not against lean social programs at this time if they are fully accountable and solvent because I realize that economically we cannot absorb a grand scale immediate elimination monetarily, but weening ourselves off of those programs at a decent pace and ensuring they become an investment rather than a handout is the only way to get those under control. Next, we have an ill-concieved, ill advised healthcare bill that has done exactly the damage predicted at the pace warned of which is costing TRILLIONS of dollars and will constantly increase in cost because the policies that private companies know are necessary to keep costs in line are not IN THE BILL.

Just off the top of my head these things can be done immediately without raising taxes, and that is without serious cutbacks to agencies not found in the constitutional federal powers that in my opinion are better left to the states and unnecessary expenditures. If we actually figured out how to convince our policy makers that they would be in a strong position by cutting the fat now and doing things the constitutional way we wouldn't need a dime more from anyone, and in fact could relax the tax system greatly.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

obvious Child said:

Most of you have no real understanding of the economy. And that includes basically everyone here saying that cuts are the answer.

If we went with cuts, contrary to your asinine baseless beliefs, we WILL see another recession. The US is growing at barely 1%. You start reducing aggregate demand and the associated spending multipliers that stem from it and we are likely to see another recession. Growth is a partial reason why tax revenues are keeping the deficit from getting bigger. You inflict an artificial recession and the deficit will expand especially as automatic stabilizers kick in as unemployment rises. Revenues will fall and outflows will increase resulting in a bigger debt problem. You say you want to fix the economy, but your solution makes it far worse. Monetary policy right now is at one of the all time lows, removing that as a primer to the pump. And before Cpwill posts that twice refuted bull**** study again about how cuts actually fix the economy, his article ignores all impacts other than fiscal policy which effectively argues that economic data exists in isolated boxes which is patently retarded.

Click to expand...

i've noticed that the weaker ground you are on, the more insulting you become. as far as compensations go, can't you just go buy a mercedes and drive it past the guys who used to make fun of you in high school or something?

my favorite part is how you try to discredit actual history - apparently every time something else happens to boost the economy when the government is reduced as a portion of it and every time something else happens to harm the economy when the government is increased.

not keynesians fault, you see, just a damn bloody coincidence

As much as you complain about high taxes, the US actually has one of the lower effective marginal rates in the Industrial World. Furthermore, Corporate tax rates, effective are lower than many places in Europe. If you don't know what effective verse statutory rates are, don't reply because I'm going to be a total asshole to you if you screw it up.

Click to expand...

you know as well as I do (better, in fact) that that completely depends on what business you are in - leaving the government still punishing (for example) retailers and smaller businesses, and you also know about the high compliance costs and efficiency losses you see from tax exposure minimization.

Considering how the rest of the world is still lending to the US at abnormally low rates DESPITE a ratings cut, the debt isn't an immediate issue. The lackluster growth is. No one ever grew their business by destroying it. That said, any spending MUST be targeted in growth areas.

You people are demanding a recession as the cure to a deficit problem. That is completely idiotic.

Click to expand...

nah. history shows us the path we must take. we cut spending, and then even though that is supposed to be disastrous "some other undefined but still apparently massively powerful impact" will come in and save us.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

obvious Child said:

Most of you have no real understanding of the economy. And that includes basically everyone here saying that cuts are the answer.

If we went with cuts, contrary to your asinine baseless beliefs, we WILL see another recession. The US is growing at barely 1%. You start reducing aggregate demand and the associated spending multipliers that stem from it and we are likely to see another recession. Growth is a partial reason why tax revenues are keeping the deficit from getting bigger. You inflict an artificial recession and the deficit will expand especially as automatic stabilizers kick in as unemployment rises. Revenues will fall and outflows will increase resulting in a bigger debt problem. You say you want to fix the economy, but your solution makes it far worse. Monetary policy right now is at one of the all time lows, removing that as a primer to the pump. And before Cpwill posts that twice refuted bull**** study again about how cuts actually fix the economy, his article ignores all impacts other than fiscal policy which effectively argues that economic data exists in isolated boxes which is patently retarded.

As much as you complain about high taxes, the US actually has one of the lower effective marginal rates in the Industrial World. Furthermore, Corporate tax rates, effective are lower than many places in Europe. If you don't know what effective verse statutory rates are, don't reply because I'm going to be a total asshole to you if you screw it up.

Considering how the rest of the world is still lending to the US at abnormally low rates DESPITE a ratings cut, the debt isn't an immediate issue. The lackluster growth is. No one ever grew their business by destroying it. That said, any spending MUST be targeted in growth areas.

You people are demanding a recession as the cure to a deficit problem. That is completely idiotic.

Click to expand...

You completely ignore the human side of the equation. People are not spending their money. That is what we need to happen. Well sort of maybe. Government spending at it's best is just a wash. Take from one and give it to another. I realize this is popular for many but it's not the answer.

You call those who disagree with you asinine but then you promote an idea that will only create even less spending. corporate taxes are simply passed on the consumers in higher prices OR lost jobs.

You don't try to address a problem only after it's become completely out of control like with Greece. Perhaps the sustainable level is somewhere below the economy we created with the bubbles of the last 20 years. No amount of government spending will be able to overcome that.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

nijato said:

In a budget wher 40% of spending is with borrowed money, increased taxes do not mean increased spending. If you're refering to the "baseline" projections as a growth in spending, that is a fair point, as it should be indexed to inflation, but otherwise remain constant. Are you with the GOP candikdates who have stated that they would refuse a 10:1 cut:tax ratio in a hypothetical plan?

Click to expand...

No. I wouldn't even balk at a lower number than that. I do not think tax increases will work BUT I would compromise to get cuts. Obama's plan increases taxes and then spends it. That would be a big NO. I would not comprimise with the promise of future cuts for spending today.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

cpwill said:

i've noticed that the weaker ground you are on, the more insulting you become. as far as compensations go, can't you just go buy a mercedes and drive it past the guys who used to make fun of you in high school or something?

my favorite part is how you try to discredit actual history - apparently every time something else happens to boost the economy when the government is reduced as a portion of it and every time something else happens to harm the economy when the government is increased.

not keynesians fault, you see, just a damn bloody coincidence

Click to expand...

Actually the arguement is that not enough of what caused the problems was used. SPend $800 billion and unemployment goes up the problem for those who believe spending is the answer will say it was because we didn't spend enough or that we spent it on the wrong things.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

1Perry said:

Actually the arguement is that not enough of what caused the problems was used. SPend $800 billion and unemployment goes up the problem for those who believe spending is the answer will say it was because we didn't spend enough or that we spent it on the wrong things.

Click to expand...

but thats' the trick, isn't it? we spend more because they tell us, it turns out to produce the exact opposite of the result they predicted, and then we are always told that no matter what we spent we should have spent more...

it's a neat little non-falsifiable argument. evidence and the scientific method need not apply.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

So the bill cut a little bit, raised taxes targetting just one group of people, and increased spending .

Good on the Republicans for giving it a no go.

Want to submit a plan to cut the budget...how about a plan that just CUTS THE BUDGET. Not cuts a little bit as political cover, and then just increases spending and increases taxes

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

Zyphlin said:

So the bill cut a little bit, raised taxes targetting just one group of people, and increased spending .

Good on the Republicans for giving it a no go.

Want to submit a plan to cut the budget...how about a plan that just CUTS THE BUDGET. Not cuts a little bit as political cover, and then just increases spending and increases taxes

Click to expand...

But Zyphlin, we all know that it's asinine of we the people to expect a bill coming from D.C. to do what it says. We just don't get the nuances and other schemes because they say so. I mean, why should we expect a bill to say cuts and mean cuts, not allot less than originally planned but actual cuts. Sarcasm off.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

cpwill said:

but thats' the trick, isn't it? we spend more because they tell us, it turns out to produce the exact opposite of the result they predicted, and then we are always told that no matter what we spent we should have spent more...

it's a neat little non-falsifiable argument. evidence and the scientific method need not apply.

Click to expand...

Makes for a convienent excuse I suppose. :shrug:

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

nijato said:

You are an articulate Keynesian... but I would contend that interest rates do not reflect any sort of faith in the US ability to repay, only that 1. Treasuries are safer than EU debt, and 2. the treasury market is the only one deep enough to absorb safe-haven cash from China, thus driving yields down because of the size of the assets for sale, not their underlying value. While I'm not with the slash-and-burn cutters, I would agree with their assessment that the US debt trajectory is deadly serious and artificially low rates have lulled fiscal and monetary policy makers into a false sense of security.

Click to expand...

Well, that's somewhat of the same thing. If debt buyers didn't think the US could pay back its obligations, they wouldn't be buying our debt. They'd be going straight to durable commodities. While that's happening to a certain degree, it's not happening on a massive "the US is screwed" level. So IMO, they do believe that the US will pay back its obligations hence why the rate is somewhat of an indicator. There's no question that the US debt is a problem, but honestly it's pennies compared to the rest of the unfunded liabilities the US from the federal government to states has which are estimated to be from a low end of $50 trillion to $200 trillion.

Perhaps we should not slash 3T from the budget, but spending increases should be solely by PAYGO rules.

Click to expand...

That's not a bad idea. I just don't get how people think that major, immediate cuts won't spark a recession when growth is anemic. That sounds to me like they have no idea how the economy actually works, as if demand isn't even relevant. They keep harping on private investment yet ignore repetitively how private investment just isn't happening. Honestly, these people sound like they live in lala land where the economic data coming out of the past 200 years simply does not exist.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

cpwill said:

i've noticed that the weaker ground you are on, the more insulting you become.

Click to expand...

Come again? I'm not the one who posted the same bull**** argument twice, and then ran cowardly twice from rebuttals, that would be you. I'm getting annoyed at you people because you get ground into the floor and then repeat the same bat**** refuted bull**** the next week. It's like you people don't give a **** that you were destroyed. Just wash, rinse repeat and hope no one notices that your refuted garbage is coming back up. It's word vomit for some of you.

as far as compensations go, can't you just go buy a mercedes and drive it past the guys who used to make fun of you in high school or something?

my favorite part is how you try to discredit actual history - apparently every time something else happens to boost the economy when the government is reduced as a portion of it and every time something else happens to harm the economy when the government is increased.

not keynesians fault, you see, just a damn bloody coincidence

Click to expand...

And when did I ever do this? Or are you simply resorting to lying because I destroyed your argument before you could use it? That is a sign of a good debater. He removes his opponent's capacity to argue before his opponent even has the chance. I denied you right off the bat your best argument, so now all you can do is lie about what I said. That's really quite pathetic. Even for you man.

If you were honest, you'd actually post that I stated (several times actually) that the Keynesians got post WWII wrong because they failed to account for years of pent up demand. But that would require you to be honest, and we know that ain't never gonna happen.

you know as well as I do (better, in fact) that that completely depends on what business you are in - leaving the government still punishing (for example) retailers and smaller businesses, and you also know about the high compliance costs and efficiency losses you see from tax exposure minimization.

Click to expand...

Completely? No. Partially? Yes. Why exactly does it punish retailers and small business? And high compliance tends to be focused on specific industries, not the broad spectrum.

nah. history shows us the path we must take. we cut spending, and then even though that is supposed to be disastrous "some other undefined but still apparently massively powerful impact" will come in and save us.

Click to expand...

Greece is saying otherwise. Ireland's growth is anemic. Austerity doesn't work in a recession like environment. And your "history" is utter bull****. That study completely ignored monetary policy and other factors, such as the INTERNET. Honesty, that study is embarrassing as it assumes all economic data exists in a bubble, isolated from each other with no interrelationships. Patently retarded. As I pointed out before, the countries that cut, were 1) not in a financial develeraging recession 2) had loose monetary economy policy or 3) had external factors such as an asset boom. Relying just about cuts without taking into account those factors is a partisan hit job and you know it. Be honest for once here.

Tell me how drastic immediate cuts to demand will create new jobs.
Try.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

1Perry said:

You completely ignore the human side of the equation.

Click to expand...

Where? I did absolutely no such thing.

People are not spending their money. That is what we need to happen. Well sort of maybe. Government spending at it's best is just a wash. Take from one and give it to another. I realize this is popular for many but it's not the answer.

Click to expand...

Hence why serious cutting is a truly asinine idea. Without consumer and corporate spending ramping up, a drastic decline to government spending will send demand through the floor. You people don't seem to get that a sharp decline in demand will cause a recession when growth is an anemic 1% or less.

No one here is capable of explaining how dramatic immediate cuts to demand will create new jobs. You all dance around or simply pretend that question does not exist because you have no answer. If you honestly tried to explain it, you'd have to admit your arguments were flat out wrong. I pointed out on an earlier thread to Iron Fist what will happen to government contractors who see their taxes drop by 3% but demand plummet by 50%. I seriously doubt he's ever going to reply.

You call those who disagree with you asinine but then you promote an idea that will only create even less spending. corporate taxes are simply passed on the consumers in higher prices OR lost jobs.

Click to expand...

That is a failure to understand competitive markets. In competitive markets, you can't pass on the cost of taxes to customers as long as there is one decently large player in the market who refuses to go along. Once firms do so, they start losing market share. BOA is currently reconsidering its debt $5 fee because everyone else is not doing so. The same goes for taxes and pretty much all shared costs. As long as enough market share refuses to go along, the rest of the firms cannot do so without suffering significant market share loss. In markets where price is not that much of an issue, costs are already passed to consumers who don't care rendering that argument irrelevant. Adding another $50 in taxes to a $3,000 handbag isn't going to change the purchaser's mind.

You don't try to address a problem only after it's become completely out of control like with Greece.

Click to expand...

Greece and the US differ in a variety of ways, many of them key to the argument. Trying to say they are the same is simplistic and ignorant. Greece has real tax evasion problems to the point where revenues are dramatically lower than they should be. Second, the welfare system of Greece is far more expensive per capita than the US. Third, Greece's capacity to generate revenue by exports is appalling low compared to the trillions the US exported last year. The US is STILL the largest manufacturers by volume and dollar value. There's absolutely no question the US has a problem, but you people are explicitly arguing an artificial recession will create jobs.

Not a single one of you wanted to discuss that. Not one.

What does that say?

Perhaps the sustainable level is somewhere below the economy we created with the bubbles of the last 20 years. No amount of government spending will be able to overcome that.

Click to expand...

There's no question that is true. The issue is the idiotic belief that an artificial recession will create jobs.

I'd LOVE to see ONE OF YOU try to explain how dramatic immediate cuts to demand can create more jobs. I doubt any of you will try. Actually, I know none of you will try.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

1Perry said:

Actually the arguement is that not enough of what caused the problems was used. SPend $800 billion and unemployment goes up the problem for those who believe spending is the answer will say it was because we didn't spend enough or that we spent it on the wrong things.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously confusing correlation with causation there? Do you realize what that $800 billion went to? A third to tax cuts. You just argued tax cuts don't work. It's amusing how many times that gets pointed out but you fools keep arguing it. Tax cuts don't work because the stimulus failed. But let's cut more taxes!!!

Idiocy all around. It's like you people don't even know what you are even discussing. Furthermore, discounter profits were abnormally high for a recession because much of the cash went towards necessary purchases. That's partially why the stimulus in terms of job creation failed. But in terms of job preservation did relatively well considering the alternative.

We actually didn't spend it on the right things. The same way Bush's $400 tax credit in late 2008 failed because it was either saved or spent on necessities. Bush's massive expansion of DOD expenditures caused major corporate trickdown post 9/11 boosting the economy, while that was somewhat wasteful, it did produce likely far more jobs over time than either Bush or Obama's recession tax cuts.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

LaMidRighter said:

But Zyphlin, we all know that it's asinine of we the people to expect a bill coming from D.C. to do what it says. We just don't get the nuances and other schemes because they say so. I mean, why should we expect a bill to say cuts and mean cuts, not allot less than originally planned but actual cuts. Sarcasm off.

Click to expand...

Instead of sniping, how about you step to the plate that Cpwill and 1Perry are unwilling to answer?

Explain how dramatic immediate cuts to demand create new jobs.

Or you can just run away and pretend that doesn't exist because it's easier than actually examining your beliefs to see if they are valid.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

obvious Child said:

Instead of sniping, how about you step to the plate that Cpwill and 1Perry are unwilling to answer?

Explain how dramatic immediate cuts to demand create new jobs.

Or you can just run away and pretend that doesn't exist because it's easier than actually examining your beliefs to see if they are valid.

Click to expand...

What demand are you talking about?

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

apdst said:

What demand are you talking about?

Click to expand...

RTFT.

10 characters.

EDIT: It's in what you quoted. Still having reading comprehension problems eh?

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

obvious Child said:

Where? I did absolutely no such thing.

Click to expand...

You once again do it below.

Hence why serious cutting is a truly asinine idea. Without consumer and corporate spending ramping up, a drastic decline to government spending will send demand through the floor. You people don't seem to get that a sharp decline in demand will cause a recession when growth is an anemic 1% or less.

Click to expand...

I realize you are unable to see the vicous circle you are advocating but that is what it is. Take from one to pay for another and all you get is a wash.

No one here is capable of explaining how dramatic immediate cuts to demand will create new jobs. You all dance around or simply pretend that question does not exist because you have no answer. If you honestly tried to explain it, you'd have to admit your arguments were flat out wrong. I pointed out on an earlier thread to Iron Fist what will happen to government contractors who see their taxes drop by 3% but demand plummet by 50%. I seriously doubt he's ever going to reply.

Click to expand...

It's been explained many times. You just reject it. Government contractors can only be paid by the government taking the money from someone else. That someone else quits spending because he knows the government is going to come looking for even more.

I posted in another thread where despite all the spending the government did in the 30's, the unemployment rate stayed right at 15%. Government spent, unemployement was 15%. They spent some more, unemployment? 15%. The only thing that broke that cycle was the positive attitude of the country with winning the war and soldiers coming home and wanting to spend. People are never going to start spending as long as the government is doing the driving.

That is a failure to understand competitive markets. In competitive markets, you can't pass on the cost of taxes to customers as long as there is one decently large player in the market who refuses to go along. Once firms do so, they start losing market share. BOA is currently reconsidering its debt $5 fee because everyone else is not doing so. The same goes for taxes and pretty much all shared costs. As long as enough market share refuses to go along, the rest of the firms cannot do so without suffering significant market share loss. In markets where price is not that much of an issue, costs are already passed to consumers who don't care rendering that argument irrelevant. Adding another $50 in taxes to a $3,000 handbag isn't going to change the purchaser's mind.

Click to expand...

We tried a "luxury tax". It led to large layoffs to those in the industries taxed. It got so bad that the taxes were rescinded.

The Lesson Of Economic Damage From “Taxing The Rich” With The Punitive Luxury Tax In The 1990s

So yes, it does make people quit buying those items.

Greece and the US differ in a variety of ways, many of them key to the argument.............

Click to expand...

The point is you do not wait until the problem because a major problem before addressing it.

Not a single one of you wanted to discuss that. Not one.

Click to expand...

Again, it's been argued here countless times. I'm not going back to find it but I'm sure we have before.

There's no question that is true. The issue is the idiotic belief that an artificial recession will create jobs.

I'd LOVE to see ONE OF YOU try to explain how dramatic immediate cuts to demand can create more jobs. I doubt any of you will try. Actually, I know none of you will try.

Click to expand...

If the natural level is somewhere below where we are now, it won't create jobs as you agree the economy is going to have to find that bottom before rising again.

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

obvious Child said:

RTFT.

10 characters.

EDIT: It's in what you quoted. Still having reading comprehension problems eh?

Click to expand...

Look ... "Obvious" ..... if government spending were the cure-all, with $14 T in debt, maybe we'd all be CEO's by now making the big bucks ?

Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

obvious Child said:

Are you seriously confusing correlation with causation there? Do you realize what that $800 billion went to? A third to tax cuts. You just argued tax cuts don't work. It's amusing how many times that gets pointed out but you fools keep arguing it. Tax cuts don't work because the stimulus failed. But let's cut more taxes!!!

Click to expand...

Tax cuts alone are not going to get us out of our hole. Somewhere today I stated that I would accept tax increases as long as they were combined with actual, real budget cuts.

Idiocy all around. It's like you people don't even know what you are even discussing. Furthermore, discounter profits were abnormally high for a recession because much of the cash went towards necessary purchases. That's partially why the stimulus in terms of job creation failed. But in terms of job preservation did relatively well considering the alternative.

Click to expand...

Jobs "preservation" is an arguement for those who finally have to admit that the stimulus failed in adding jobs. And yet, even after admitting it failed, you call for more. :shrug:

We actually didn't spend it on the right things. The same way Bush's $400 tax credit in late 2008 failed because it was either saved or spent on necessities. Bush's massive expansion of DOD expenditures caused major corporate trickdown post 9/11 boosting the economy, while that was somewhat wasteful, it did produce likely far more jobs over time than either Bush or Obama's recession tax cuts.

Click to expand...

I don't think one can say people were allowed to keep more of their money which they then spent on necessities is a failure.