• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Yes, and your point? 50% of American families or individual wage earners rent or don't own a home. why didn't they benefit from the Bush tax cuts?

You continue to miss the point; 50% of American families or individual wage earners is not a clear statement. First and foremost, the home ownership rate in the US. has fluctuated between 60% and nearly 70% of all "households". During the peak of the real estate bubble, home ownership was also at its peak, or near 70%.

US_Homeownership_by_Race_2009.png


Secondly, it still is a considerable drag on our current economy. Even if your 50% number was accurate, the decline still impacts the whole 100%, i.e. GDP will be lower.

Aw, so now you move the goalposts, so it is now non home owners didn't benefit as much as home owners from the Bush tax cuts? Spendable income increases with tax cuts and that affects human behavior thus economic growth.

Not at all! Simply making another point.
 
IOU's have to be paid for and where does the money come to fund those IOU's when they become due?

Kinda off topic; but i'll bite.

Inflation will eat up a considerable amount.
 
Follow the money. Where did the proceeds of the tax cuts flow?

Is it your desire to have the govt. tell a private citizen what to do with their money? Thought Libertarians believed in less govt?
 
Is it your desire to have the govt. tell a private citizen what to do with their money? Thought Libertarians believed in less govt?

This is a strawman argument that does not even address my comment. The fact of the matter is, tax cuts do not necessarily lead to a sustainable growth economy, in and of themselves. An economy is far more complex than that, all of your anti-intellectualism aside.
 
This is a strawman argument that does not even address my comment. The fact of the matter is, tax cuts do not necessarily lead to a sustainable growth economy, in and of themselves. An economy is far more complex than that, all of your anti-intellectualism aside.

That is your opinion and that of SOME economists, not my opinion nor the opinion of other economists. I hope you don't have a shortage of air on top of that pedestal that you live on as an intellectual superior to the rest of us peons. Too bad they don't teach people logic and common sense out of textbooks because then you would have it all. Tax cuts leads to more spendable income and that affects economic activity positively as evidenced by the GDP growth and job creation after all meaningful tax cuts. Harding knew it, JFK knew it, Reagan knew it, as did Bush 2. There are four major components to GDP, figure out which one contributes the most and what more spendable income does to that component.

Sorry, but my comment does address yours

Follow the money. Where did the proceeds of the tax cuts flow?

since you believe that the Bush tax cuts weren't spent properly thus causing the housing bubble or aren't "proceeds of the tax cuts" spending. If people don't spend their money wisely whose responsibility is it to assure that they do? Are you so superior that you should determine where people spend their money or be there to protect them when they make bad choices?
 
Tax cuts leads to more spendable income and that affects economic activity positively as evidenced by the GDP growth and job creation after all meaningful tax cuts.

Depends on how much of that "spendable" income is actually spent. If it is used to pay down debt, it facilitates a contraction in the money supply. If it is spent on durable good consumption, the argument can be made that it positively impacts GDP in sustainable terms.

Harding knew it, JFK knew it, Reagan knew it, as did Bush 2. There are four major components to GDP, figure out which one contributes the most and what more spendable income does to that component.

What causes people to actually want to spend: A tax cut or an increase in income? The two are not the same. People spend more money when they believe they are making more money.

Sorry, but my comment does address yours

Nope. I made no mention about telling citizens what to do with their money.



since you believe that the Bush tax cuts weren't spent properly thus causing the housing bubble or aren't "proceeds of the tax cuts" spending. If people don't spend their money wisely whose responsibility is it to assure that they do? Are you so superior that you should determine where people spend their money or be there to protect them when they make bad choices?

I am not here to make qualitative statements. There are two types of economics: positive and normative. Normative economics involves how things "should be". Your posts in such topics are normative. Positive economics involves how things "are". My posts are driven by positive economic analysis. That my analysis does not lend support to your ideological desire in now way invalidates the point(s).

You want tax cuts to be a major contributor to economic stimuli, ceteris paribus. The only problem is, ceteris paribus is a classroom assumption. Therefore, multiple factors are likely to contribute to a dynamic environment where results are not so black or white.
 
Kushinator;1062064958]Depends on how much of that "spendable" income is actually spent. If it is used to pay down debt, it facilitates a contraction in the money supply. If it is spent on durable good consumption, the argument can be made that it positively impacts GDP in sustainable terms.

Whatever is spent is more than would be normal without the tax cut and regardless of what they do with it, it benefits the economy. saving money puts more money in the banks to lend, paying down debt puts more money into the hands of the business, spending it we already know what happens, investing it helps business grow. You seem to base your entire argument that people make poor choices and somehow that needs to be regulated or controlled. The govt. isn't a parent so stop trying to delegate that responsibility to the govt.



What causes people to actually want to spend: A tax cut or an increase in income? The two are not the same. People spend more money when they believe they are making more money.

A tax rate cut and a pay raise both cause people to spend, always will, but a raise also means higher taxes. People look at their paycheck and see an amount. When the withholding is less the check amount is more.



Nope. I made no mention about telling citizens what to do with their money.

Then what did you mean by the proceeds of the tax cuts causing the real estate prices to rise? Do you understand supply and demand? The bad choices people made should not have led to any kind of bailout, business or individual.


I am not here to make qualitative statements. There are two types of economics: positive and normative. Normative economics involves how things "should be". Your posts in such topics are normative. Positive economics involves how things "are". My posts are driven by positive economic analysis. That my analysis does not lend support to your ideological desire in now way invalidates the point(s).

You want tax cuts to be a major contributor to economic stimuli, ceteris paribus. The only problem is, ceteris paribus is a classroom assumption. Therefore, multiple factors are likely to contribute to a dynamic environment where results are not so black or white.

Sorry, but your opinion is based upon textbooks not personal experience or interacting with actual people. I have a BS degree in business and ran a 200 million dollar a year business with over 1200 employees. Those people weren't numbers, they were individuals who reacted when they got a pay raise or a tax cut positively. Your book smarts does not negate street smarts because it is street smarts which drive economic behavior.

Tax cuts are a major contributor to economic activity because the single biggest economic component is consumer spending. You really need to get out more with the common people and see how the other half live from the elite like you.
 
Whatever is spent is more than would be normal without the tax cut and regardless of what they do with it, it benefits the economy.

Incorrect. Paying down debt is not the same as spending, and therefore does not generate economic expenditure.

saving money puts more money in the banks to lend

There is not a causative relationship between paying down debt and increased lending activity. If anything, the data shows otherwise. Saving money (that would have otherwise been spent) only diminishes GDP growth. This is simply a matter of fact.

paying down debt puts more money into the hands of the business

Large cash balances do not lead to job creation.

spending it we already know what happens

Depends. Do people purchase heavily inflated real estate? Or, do people purchase a new washer/dryer for their existing home?

investing it helps business grow.

Again, it depends.

You seem to base your entire argument that people make poor choices and somehow that needs to be regulated or controlled. The govt. isn't a parent so stop trying to delegate that responsibility to the govt.

I am making the argument that tax cuts do not necessarily lead to sustainable economic growth. The evidence supports my position.

A tax rate cut and a pay raise both cause people to spend, always will

Nope! It depends on the individuals consumption/saving propensity. Consumption generated by tax cuts is highest for low income individuals, or those who possess the least amount of liquid assets. The question then becomes; does the amount of consumption generated meet or exceed the income generated when the government makes purchases from the private sector, e.g. when it builds a new bridge or repairs an old one? Empirical research suggests otherwise.

but a raise also means higher taxes.

Bracket creep is a phenomenon that requires persistent inflation!

People look at their paycheck and see an amount. When the withholding is less the check amount is more.

Sure! But does that necessarily mean that the person will spend more? It depends on a plethora of other factors.

Then what did you mean by the proceeds of the tax cuts causing the real estate prices to rise?

Real estate prices increased rather dramatically following the Bush tax cuts. It turned into an asset bubble.

Do you understand supply and demand?

Of course. However, housing price gains outpaced the growth of income 5:1.

The bad choices people made should not have led to any kind of bailout, business or individual.

Bad choices made by the few cannot be allowed to spillover into the lives of the many. People have still yet to recover (in terms of purchasing power) wealth declines from the great recession.

fredgraph.png





Sorry, but your opinion is based upon textbooks not personal experience or interacting with actual people. I have a BS degree in business and ran a 200 million dollar a year business with over 1200 employees. Those people weren't numbers, they were individuals who reacted when they got a pay raise or a tax cut positively. Your book smarts does not negate street smarts because it is street smarts which drive economic behavior.

Tax cuts are a major contributor to economic activity because the single biggest economic component is consumer spending. You really need to get out more with the common people and see how the other half live from the elite like you.[/QUOTE]
 
Wow, how typical, you believe human nature is going to be the same regardless of the taxes. Very few economists consider human behavior in their analysis and it is human behavior that drives the number one component of GDP which affects govt. revenue. It isn't tax cuts that cause deficits it is spending. Learn that and you will have more credibility.

Nice regurgitation of the Con mantra. You have done Rupert Murdoch proud. And what studies have you seen that support such a contention (link please)? None... I thought so. I'm not going to let you make unsupported statements and that is one.

The budgets were nicely balanced to running modest deficits before the tax cuts (contrary to your contention, we were not outspending income by 1/2 Trillion before tax cuts) However, after tax cuts, somehow we thought it advisable to THEN step up spending, starting a war and running two occupations and expanding Medicare Part D. Perhaps the evidence suggests cutting taxes leads to increased spending?

Support your statements and maybe you will have some credibility.
 
Kushinator;1062065482]Incorrect. Paying down debt is not the same as spending, and therefore does not generate economic expenditure.


Where exactly does that go, out of circulation?


There is not a causative relationship between paying down debt and increased lending activity. If anything, the data shows otherwise. Saving money (that would have otherwise been spent) only diminishes GDP growth. This is simply a matter of fact.

Where does that money go and where do banks or businesses get the money to lend? Your data tells you only part of the story. Again, you obviously are very book smart but you really need to get out more. Business investment is part of a GDP Component.

Large cash balances do not lead to job creation.

Who said they did? What is preventing businesses from spending that money now is Obama and his economic policy. If you had a business would you spend excess cash now? Have you ever hired an employee? Any idea as to the costs of hiring and yes, firing?


Depends. Do people purchase heavily inflated real estate? Or, do people purchase a new washer/dryer for their existing home?

Either way it is personal choice. Do you have a problem with personal choice? Any spending helps the economy and has a ripple effect

Again, it depends.

Where does investment capital go?

I am making the argument that tax cuts do not necessarily lead to sustainable economic growth. The evidence supports my position.

Your opinion noted, not necessarily leaves room for a difference of opinion and different outcome. A tax cut that was implemented in July 2003 isn't going to be effecting in July 2013. It needs to be reinforced along with positive economic policies

Nope! It depends on the individuals consumption/saving propensity. Consumption generated by tax cuts is highest for low income individuals, or those who possess the least amount of liquid assets. The question then becomes; does the amount of consumption generated meet or exceed the income generated when the government makes purchases from the private sector, e.g. when it builds a new bridge or repairs an old one? Empirical research suggests otherwise.

Again, you have no idea what people do with their money but the textbooks tell you that tax cuts generates the highest consumption by low income people many of whom pay no net FIT. Govt doesn't invest, it spends. There is no requirement for a return on that investment and the record shows we have an almost 17 trillion dollar debt today because of that govt. spending and lack of revenue due to poor economic policies. You see people cannot print money and aren't going to spend based upon uncertainty or poor consumer confidence

Bracket creep is a phenomenon that requires persistent inflation!

Thus the need for a flat tax

Sure! But does that necessarily mean that the person will spend more? It depends on a plethora of other factors.

People with more spendable income need less of that so called govt. help. I prefer people having the money vs. the govt. taking it and wasting it on social engineering.


Real estate prices increased rather dramatically following the Bush tax cuts. It turned into an asset bubble.

You don't seem to understand why. The free market is always going to create bubbles, how those bubbles are handled is what matters. This Govt. hasn't done a good job handling bubbles.

Of course. However, housing price gains outpaced the growth of income 5:1.

Yes, and what is your solution, control of the cash? So what that housing price gains outpaced the growth of income. Seems the market will correct itself.

Bad choices made by the few cannot be allowed to spillover into the lives of the many. People have still yet to recover (in terms of purchasing power) wealth declines from the great recession.

fredgraph.png

Enough social engineering and govt. micromanaging the private sector economy. The govt trying to legislate equal outcome and not equal opportunity is what causes the problems we have today. Promoting individual wealth creation is what made this country great, demonizing it destroys it
 
upsideguy;1062065562]Nice regurgitation of the Con mantra. You have done Rupert Murdoch proud. And what studies have you seen that support such a contention (link please)? None... I thought so. I'm not going to let you make unsupported statements and that is one.

What studies? The studies of real life business and an honest look at reality. What do you do when you have more money in your paycheck and how does that affect the economy?

The budgets were nicely balanced to running modest deficits before the tax cuts (contrary to your contention, we were not outspending income by 1/2 Trillion before tax cuts) However, after tax cuts, somehow we thought it advisable to THEN step up spending, starting a war and running two occupations and expanding Medicare Part D. Perhaps the evidence suggests cutting taxes leads to increased spending?

Sorry, but the growth in spending caused the deficits to explode not tax cuts so if you have a problem keeping more of what you earn then do liberals proud and send it back. Just send the govt. a check and write on that check donation to the deficit.

Amazing, isn't it, that GW Bush generated a 4.9 trillion dollar debt over 8 years, one trillion of it due to 9/11 and the world ended. The war in Iraq is over, Democrats controlled the congress and could have repealed Medicare Part D, defunded the War in Afghanistan but didn't but what they did do was increase the Bush budgets by over 500 billion dollars a year and implement policies that led to slow economic growth and stagnant job creation.

The data supports my statements but your lack of knowledge of how the govt. works seems to be the issue here. Responsibility for poor choices only appears to apply to Republicans. Maybe you, like Kush, believes that debt doesn't matter and interest expenses on the budget is just a place holder. What economic policies has Obama implemented to spur private sector growth and a reduction in the deficit?
 
Ok, you guys are so far over my head that it makes me dizzy....But I can offer a lay person's perspective if you wish..

All I know is that I watch the news, and see all of this 'quantitative easing' (ie. printing more money) and from what I remember from learning about our system once that money is out there, it has to be clawed back in at some point, no? And that the way that is done for the most part, is through inflation. But, the amounts of money that have been pumped into the economy would do great damage to the fragile economy reeling in back to stabilize anything...

I as an average blue collar, middle class guy, already see nearly 50% of my labor redirected in one fashion or another toward government, be it local, state, federal, income, sales, gas, electric, water, and other fees, taxes, etc...I am sick of it! I PAY ENOUGH DAMN IT! And I am sick and tired of those that want to tell me that because I scratched, and clawed to make it to where I am at today, that it's 'unfair' that I have more than others that either aren't willing, or aren't able to better themselves without my money. I have a hard enough time, and I am being lied to by one side or the other consistently each day.

I swear, I think we should just kick every one of these myopic MF'ers out of office and put in regular guys like me, hell we couldn't do any worse.
 
I would argue that you lack basic logic and common sense as well. Doctors order tests for fear of being sued and if you believe a govt. run program is going to be any better you really are very naïve.

Thats not true. Not even remotely true.
 
So let's see. Democrats passed a unilateral program that is so convoluted and daunting the President of the United States has decided to delay parts of it for a year. At the same time, this unilateral take over of 1/6th of the nations economy was passed with components like the "doctor fix" left out to make it look less expensive. And of course, let's not forget this program is going to exacerbate the problem of lack of medical professionals to provide care to the millions of new patients. Finally, the only thing you have presented in reference to Doctor compensation is your brother, while I have presented multiple articles detailing the seriousness of the problem.

I'm sorry, but I have not seen anything in your argument what would compell me to think differently about Obamacare. However, it is the law of the land, and all of us will be forced to swallow whatever comes down the road.

I didn't say it was a perfect plan. They had a much better one on the table before republicans and the tea party went stupid. I know neither wants to own their role, but the truth is still the truth. But despite this, it's still a step in the right direction. But we should not stop here.
 
One thing that feeds the skeptic. Who is in charge, and words and phrases like "reform initiatives are intended" and "viewed as a process".

In spite of decades of examples from other countries around the globe, we think we are so good, we can do it better. So far, all "we" are seeing is "intended" and "it's a process".

With the governments track record, "intended" and "process" will likely be operative words for decades to come.

Actually, they've been doing it better than us.
 
I didn't say it was a perfect plan. They had a much better one on the table before republicans and the tea party went stupid. I know neither wants to own their role, but the truth is still the truth. But despite this, it's still a step in the right direction. But we should not stop here.

It was Dems that need to be brought on board...
 
It was Dems that need to be brought on board...

For what? Republicans never really even address it. Not really. But they've done a good job of seeing next to no reform takes place.
 
For what? Republicans never really even address it. Not really. But they've done a good job of seeing next to no reform takes place.

Dems had control, which is how it got through in the first place, but some wouldn't go along with the House version, so we go this monstrosity...
 
Dems had control, which is how it got through in the first place, but some wouldn't go along with the House version, so we go this monstrosity...

Don't misunderstand. I'm not happy with democrats. But it's dishonest to pretend they functioned In a vacuum with no outside forces influences.
 
Don't misunderstand. I'm not happy with democrats. But it's dishonest to pretend they functioned In a vacuum with no outside forces influences.

I never implied that they did, but it was not Repubs that were being negotiated with; it was recalcitrant Dems...
 
I never implied that they did, but it was not Repubs that were being negotiated with; it was recalcitrant Dems...

But, as I noted earlier, republicans and the tea party set the stage, poisoning the well so to speak.
 
But, as I noted earlier, republicans and the tea party set the stage, poisoning the well so to speak.

An opinion I can understand, but it does not change the facts. Oh, BTW, were there any tea party members of Congress elected in 2008?
 
I didn't say it was a perfect plan. They had a much better one on the table before republicans and the tea party went stupid. I know neither wants to own their role, but the truth is still the truth. But despite this, it's still a step in the right direction. But we should not stop here.

What I find disturbing is how much confidence you have in a Federal Govt. that has run up a 17 trillion dollar debt and has never implemented a social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, do what it was supposed to do, actually solve a problem and go away. Why is that?
 
Back
Top Bottom