More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

washunut · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Well, as I also call for a cut in spending, I don't see it quite that way. But, cut or not, it is more about which is more likely to spend. Sadly, the wealthy don't use tax savings to spend. The middle class does more often. If I were goign to make an argument to let anyone be exempt, it would be those more likely to spend, as that is what is really needed for the ecopnomy.

Tax policy is not usually written to take care of short term problems, but more structural ones. But if that is what we are doing here, then let's make the rates adjust annually based on where we are in the economic cycle.

I am afraid the real arguement (perhaps not from you but the politicians) is more a class warfare arguement than anything to do with the economy.

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

washunut said:
Tax policy is not usually written to take care of short term problems, but more structural ones. But if that is what we are doing here, then let's make the rates adjust annually based on where we are in the economic cycle.

I am afraid the real arguement (perhaps not from you but the politicians) is more a class warfare arguement than anything to do with the economy.

Well, I don't really see it that way. Sure, both sides spin it to suit them, and one spin is that we're going to stick it to the rich. Another is that it is class warfare. The fact is we need more revenue just as much as we need to reduce spending. So, while politiicans will make whatever hay they can with these things, I prefer to ask if it is a valid effort toa address our fiscal concerns. And i'm more than willing to take one step while calling for a second step.

Councilman · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
J, look up slippery slope fallacy.

If it doesn't stop there, that would be a new proposal deserving a new discussion. Mindless fear mongering won't sway any thinking person to your position. Debate the issue before us and not those from make believe land.

Make all the false claims you want, believe what ever Obama lies you want, and call stating the facts fear mongering all you want.

In other words it's still a semi-Free Country under Obama so as you are, being WRONG is permitted.

Unless the U.S. Congress acts, there is going to be a massive wave of tax increases in 2011. In fact, some are already calling 2011 the year of the tax increase. A whole host of tax cuts that Congress established between 2001 and 2003 are set to expire in January unless Congress chooses to renew them. But with Democrats firmly in control of both houses that appears to be extremely unlikely.

These tax increases are going to affect every single American (at least those who actually pay taxes).

But this will be just the first wave of tax increases. Another huge slate of tax increases passed in the health care reform law is scheduled to go into effect by 2019. So Americans that are already infuriated by our tax system are only going to become more frustrated in the years ahead. The reality is that the U.S. government will soon be digging much deeper into our wallets.

Read it and weep, this is the reality we face. Thank Marxist Obama.

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
Hell, we aren't totally done yet weeding through the destruction leveled by the health care debacle. I am sure there is much more to come with that steaming pile. But, as always the liberal response is that we can't do anything about pending disaster until that disaster happens, I don't buy into that attitude.

j-mac

Even if you're right, it's nothing more than speculation. And frankly, a rather skewed speculation based on a specific bias. What we have is what is before us. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies for a reason, and should be treated as such.

washunut · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Well, I don't really see it that way. Sure, both sides spin it to suit them, and one spin is that we're going to stick it to the rich. Another is that it is class warfare. The fact is we need more revenue just as much as we need to reduce spending. So, while politiicans will make whatever hay they can with these things, I prefer to ask if it is a valid effort toa address our fiscal concerns. And i'm more than willing to take one step while calling for a second step.

I would agree with you if getting a handle on our deficit was the main reason for this tax increase. As you know there is a deficit commission set up by the president due to release their findings in december. The expectation is that they will recommend both spending cuts and tax increases.

Thus this current debate about the top 2% etc. is just politics hoping to find an issue to run on for the next two weeks.

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

washunut said:
I would agree with you if getting a handle on our deficit was the main reason for this tax increase. As you know there is a deficit commission set up by the president due to release their findings in december. The expectation is that they will recommend both spending cuts and tax increases.

Thus this current debate about the top 2% etc. is just politics hoping to find an issue to run on for the next two weeks.

And I will likely agree with that recommendation. But if we can't even agree on the top 2%, what chance do those recommendations have of being implimented?

Zyphlin · Oct 18, 2010

Perhaps if the Democrats actually made attempts OTHER than simply taxing the rich to deal with the deficits...reforming social security, cutting luxury spending, looking at across the board taxes...people may be more willing to get on board or buy it. However since they're doing the same thing they've been trying to do throughout the entirity of George Bush and Obama's administrations and are just now using a different excuse why the hell should anyone buy that excuse as being truthful?

They've been bitching about the "tax cuts for the rich" since 2001 but only recently have "we need to do it for the deficits" been the main call for it. When they're not doing a damn thing anywhere else to fight it it calls into question their honesty in their stated reasons.

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

Zyphlin said:
Perhaps if the Democrats actually made attempts OTHER than simply taxing the rich to deal with the deficits...reforming social security, cutting luxury spending, looking at across the board taxes...people may be more willing to get on board or buy it. However since they're doing the same thing they've been trying to do throughout the entirity of George Bush and Obama's administrations and are just now using a different excuse why the hell should anyone buy that excuse as being truthful?

They've been bitching about the "tax cuts for the rich" since 2001 but only recently have "we need to do it for the deficits" been the main call for it. When they're not doing a damn thing anywhere else to fight it it calls into question their honesty in their stated reasons.

Kind of like wishing republicans would come up with more than tax cuts. but, that is the burden we're left with. I suggest we ask both tackle it realisitically and responsibly. Cut spending and raise taxes. This would be a responsble way to tackle IMHO.

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Even if you're right, it's nothing more than speculation. And frankly, a rather skewed speculation based on a specific bias. What we have is what is before us. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies for a reason, and should be treated as such.

Maybe, but the term shouldn't be used as a tool to dismiss concerns either. So let's see, if I read you correctly you are trying to say that my analysis of the 2,800 page health care bill is based on specific bias, and even though it is passed, and signed into law right now, we don't know exactly what is in it, so we can't complain about what we do know is in it that is already having destructive consequences on the economy?

Would you say that businesses that are reading this law, and now asking for waivers, and holding off on hiring are also misinformed?

j-mac

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Kind of like wishing republicans would come up with more than tax cuts. but, that is the burden we're left with. I suggest we ask both tackle it realisitically and responsibly. Cut spending and raise taxes. This would be a responsble way to tackle IMHO.

Responsible economists are all saying that any tax increase at this time would be destructive to an already fragile economy.

j-mac

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Kind of like wishing republicans would come up with more than tax cuts. but, that is the burden we're left with. I suggest we ask both tackle it realisitically and responsibly. Cut spending and raise taxes. This would be a responsble way to tackle IMHO.

Responsible economists are all saying that any tax increase at this time would be destructive to an already fragile economy.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
Responsible economists are all saying that any tax increase at this time would be destructive to an already fragile economy.

j-mac

That's not true. Some say that. Some you agree with. But others say it will have no effect at all. So, that's why I keep asking for any historical evidence that shows tax cuts work to stimulate the economy, or that it effects the economy at all. When the economy was doing well, we were at the higher tax rate. The eoconmy went south with the tax cuts in place. So, I'm not convinced tax cuts maen anythign at all concerning the economy.

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
Maybe, but the term shouldn't be used as a tool to dismiss concerns either. So let's see, if I read you correctly you are trying to say that my analysis of the 2,800 page health care bill is based on specific bias, and even though it is passed, and signed into law right now, we don't know exactly what is in it, so we can't complain about what we do know is in it that is already having destructive consequences on the economy?

Would you say that businesses that are reading this law, and now asking for waivers, and holding off on hiring are also misinformed?

j-mac

Yes, when a bias reader anaylises it, then that bais is transfered to the analysis. So, when you read the American non-thinker, their ananylsis would never ever say it was a good thing. Even if it was demonstratively a perfect bill, such would never be a part of their analysis. Instead, you need something more objective. And you need to be factual. Not that you have to like the bill, but hyperbolic nonsense doesn't work as an argument that will convince anyone actually trying to figure it out. Such is only something the biased partisan can praise.

Zyphlin · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
When the economy was doing well, we were at the higher tax rate. The eoconmy went south with the tax cuts in place.

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

During the economic boom of the 90's you had relatively little true "wars". You had the tech boom spurring entrepenurism, the technology sector, and access to goods. At the same time technology hadn't advanced to the point it is in the 2000's that makes outsourcing so much easier and more efficient then it did then. You also had for the majority of the 90's during the boom a Republican congress rather than a Democrat one, forcing much more restraint on the part of the government as you had a legitimate check and balance of ideology with the Dem Pres/Rep Congress. The housing boom was just beginning to the end rather than being at the end of the bubble. You didn't have a massive and gigantic terrorist attack on our financial center of the US.

And I can go on and on.

Its absolutely ignorant to simply look at the 90's and look at the 00's and go "Taxes raised in 90s, economy good. Taxes lower in 00's, economy bad. It must be taxes".

The Cowboys were highly successful in the 90's, the Patriots were in the 00's. The Cowboys were "America's Team", seemingly representing "the people", and their success increased the attitude and happiness of Americans thus spending more and spurring the economy. The Patriots, with their cheating coach and super model quarter back, represented elitism and ivory towers. People dislike them and their winning ways depressed America, causing spending to slow, consumer confidence to plummet, and the economy to tank. Since when the economy was doing well, we had the Cowboys winning. The eoconmy went south with the Patriots winning. So, I'm not convinced that who wins the most superbowls in a decade doesn't mean anything concerning the economy.

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

Zyphlin said:
Correlation doesn't equal causation.

During the economic boom of the 90's you had relatively little true "wars". You had the tech boom spurring entrepenurism, the technology sector, and access to goods. At the same time technology hadn't advanced to the point it is in the 2000's that makes outsourcing so much easier and more efficient then it did then. You also had for the majority of the 90's during the boom a Republican congress rather than a Democrat one, forcing much more restraint on the part of the government as you had a legitimate check and balance of ideology with the Dem Pres/Rep Congress. The housing boom was just beginning to the end rather than being at the end of the bubble. You didn't have a massive and gigantic terrorist attack on our financial center of the US.

And I can go on and on.

Its absolutely ignorant to simply look at the 90's and look at the 00's and go "Taxes raised in 90s, economy good. Taxes lower in 00's, economy bad. It must be taxes".

The Cowboys were highly successful in the 90's, the Patriots were in the 00's. The Cowboys were "America's Team", seemingly representing "the people", and their success increased the attitude and happiness of Americans thus spending more and spurring the economy. The Patriots, with their cheating coach and super model quarter back, represented elitism and ivory towers. People dislike them and their winning ways depressed America, causing spending to slow, consumer confidence to plummet, and the economy to tank. Since when the economy was doing well, we had the Cowboys winning. The eoconmy went south with the Patriots winning. So, I'm not convinced that who wins the most superbowls in a decade doesn't mean anything concerning the economy.

If you're areading me clearly, I'm saying there is a causation. I'm saying there is little to evidence to support that tax cuts effect the economy or hiring. And we can look back throughout our histroy and see that we've had a good economy with a high tax base, and with a low tax base; a poor economy with a low tax base and with a high tax base.

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
That's not true. Some say that. Some you agree with. But others say it will have no effect at all.

yeah, the others must be the ones you agree with is that right? :roll:

So, that's why I keep asking for any historical evidence that shows tax cuts work to stimulate the economy, or that it effects the economy at all.

I suggest you refer to the capital gains cuts that Reagan made in the wake of destruction left him by the Carter administration.

When the economy was doing well, we were at the higher tax rate. The eoconmy went south with the tax cuts in place. So, I'm not convinced tax cuts maen anythign at all concerning the economy.

Then please explain to me why it is that when we see tax rates go up we read of receipts go down, and vice versa?

Yes, when a bias reader anaylises it, then that bais is transfered to the analysis. So, when you read the American non-thinker, their ananylsis would never ever say it was a good thing.

Who said I was basing my discussion today on anything from the American Thinker? That would be you obfuscating.

Instead, you need something more objective.

I have requested repeatedly for you to give me a list of accepted sources by you, however when ever I use a source, what I find is that if it disagrees with you, you then dismiss it as opinion, or bias, or anything other than addressing what it talks about to continue your DNC far left tripe. So have out with it Joe, name the sources that you want, or start arguing the fact presented you, this other tactic is beneath you.

Not that you have to like the bill, but hyperbolic nonsense doesn't work as an argument that will convince anyone actually trying to figure it out. Such is only something the biased partisan can praise.

That's rich...So I have to argue my case from a box that only you approve of, using language that only you approve of, and anything that is actually in the bill that is written in vague language, or could be destructive but isn't only because it hasn't taken effect yet can not be used is that it?

IOW, agree or be quiet.....Nice.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
Then please explain to me why it is that when we see tax rates go up we read of receipts go down, and vice versa?

While a different measurement, we really don't. People have addressed this elsewhere.

Who said I was basing my discussion today on anything from the American Thinker? That would be you obfuscating.

It was an example. But, you tend to pick a conservative and say they said so. You rarely, if ever, present anything factual to assess.

I have requested repeatedly for you to give me a list of accepted sources by you, however when ever I use a source, what I find is that if it disagrees with you, you then dismiss it as opinion, or bias, or anything other than addressing what it talks about to continue your DNC far left tripe. So have out with it Joe, name the sources that you want, or start arguing the fact presented you, this other tactic is beneath you.

I gave you list. But it isn't that hard. Mainstream with a history of being accurate.

That's rich...So I have to argue my case from a box that only you approve of, using language that only you approve of, and anything that is actually in the bill that is written in vague language, or could be destructive but isn't only because it hasn't taken effect yet can not be used is that it?
IOW, agree or be quiet.....Nice.

j-mac

Odd that you see being reasonable as being boxed in. That using facts, and honesty is an intrusion. I'm sorry, but nonsense like your side too often pushes shold never be treated equal to honest factual debate. Sorry.

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
While a different measurement, we really don't. People have addressed this elsewhere.

We are talking about it now, stop obfuscating. Present your side of concede you have nothing.

It was an example. But, you tend to pick a conservative and say they said so. You rarely, if ever, present anything factual to assess.

Well, I could say that you wouldn't recognize a fact if it bit you, but instead I will only observe that "facts" to you seem to be in the realm of that which agrees with you. Anything else is dismissed.

I gave you list.

You did? :shock: Where? I may have missed it due to me going off to work of something.

But it isn't that hard. Mainstream with a history of being accurate.

And whom determines accuracy? You? :doh

Odd that you see being reasonable as being boxed in.

You think yourself as reasonable?

That using facts, and honesty is an intrusion.

Now you're just making **** up.

I'm sorry, but nonsense like your side too often pushes shold never be treated equal to honest factual debate. Sorry.

My side? What side is that Joe? "Honest and factual" debate? Could you lay out some of your documented honesty, and facts here...I rarely see you post links anymore.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
Well, I could say that you wouldn't recognize a fact if it bit you, but instead I will only observe that "facts" to you seem to be in the realm of that which agrees with you. Anything else is dismissed.

J, I have shown historical information. There is no evidence tax cuts help the economy. the economy was doing well at the higher tax rate and went south with the Bush tax cuts in place. Go back though history and you will find no conclusive evidence showing tax cuts matter at all.

You did? :shock: Where? I may have missed it due to me going off to work of something.

Go back to the places you asked, and I'm sure you will find it.

And whom determines accuracy? You? :doh

No, accuracy determines accuracy. This isn't rocket science j.

You think yourself as reasonable?

Mostly.

Now you're just making **** up.

J, that's what I asked for and you complained it wasn't fair.

My side? What side is that Joe? "Honest and factual" debate? Could you lay out some of your documented honesty, and facts here...I rarely see you post links anymore.

j-mac

J, I've laid them out many times. Be specific and I'll lay them out again. We've seen the study showing tax cuts would not create jobs. We've seen the historical information on tax cuts and the economy, no correlation or causation. It's all been laid out many times.

Councilman · Oct 18, 2010

As I have argued for many years one should never judge a book by its cover, and people are not necessarily as dumb as they look, further more, one should never assume the guilt by association mantra, as it turns out all Democrats are not beyond hope.

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
J, I have shown historical information. There is no evidence tax cuts help the economy.

Really? then explain this from June:

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Japan’s government pledged to cut the nation’s tax on businesses and nurture the environment and health care industries as part of a plan to defeat deflation and end two decades of economic stagnation.

Japan Aims to Cut Company Tax to Spur Economic Growth (Update1) - BusinessWeek

Investment analyst Linda Traynham in her opinion writes:

It simply is not possible to tax the profits of businesses because the increases are always passed on through higher prices, reduced quality, reduced quantity, or some combination of the three. Idled capacity and the increased hiring that required would be very expensive if the economy is not significantly better five quarters from now, and it isn’t going to be if taxes and regulations continue to grow.

What Won’t Spur Economic Growth? | the Mesh Report

Then there is the NYTimes, are they wrong as well Joe?

Republicans, and a few Democrats, assert that the Bush tax cuts should be extended for everyone, warning that a tax increase right now, even if limited to the highest income bracket, would hurt small businesses and choke off an economic recovery that is already gasping.

Given the economy’s persistent weakness and an unemployment rate hovering above 9.5 percent, those arguments have gained traction. And because another round of government stimulus spending is considered politically unviable even if it were warranted, the debate over the tax cuts will be laced with promises to spur economic activity and reduce unemployment.

News Headlines

No, I think you are quickly placing yourself in the group that so wants Keynesian models, and redistribution from the wealthy down, that you are willing to ignore the basics of economics.

We've seen the study showing tax cuts would not create jobs.

What studies are these, can you post them for scrutiny? Or will you just jab some more and denounce anything outside your view as nutty?

j-mac

washunut · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
And I will likely agree with that recommendation. But if we can't even agree on the top 2%, what chance do those recommendations have of being implimented?

All I am saying that it would make sense to do this thing as a package. This will insure that there is some balance. Also we do not know what exactly this committee will recommend. For all I know they will say that there should be another level of taxes for people over $5 million at a 60% rate. Ot they recommend a VAT tax, etc.

So we are two months from the date the president set for these folks to report out. We do not even have a budget for 2010-2011 yet.

I would like to see the comittee's recommendations voted like the base closings staight up or down. The process gets screwed up by changing tax policy before the vote.

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
Really? then explain this from June:

Explain what? Agian, you did not give historical information or factual information, but instead said if they SAY this, it must be so.

Investment analyst Linda Traynham in her opinion writes:

Again, opinion. Where's the evidence to support the opinion?

Then there is the NYTimes, are they wrong as well Joe?

This only states that the argument has gained traction. Again, no factual evidence to support that it effects the economy.

No, I think you are quickly placing yourself in the group that so wants Keynesian models, and redistribution from the wealthy down, that you are willing to ignore the basics of economics.

I know asking for factual evidence means you place people in boxes. So, don't let anything stop you. But, you have not given factual information.

What studies are these, can you post them for scrutiny? Or will you just jab some more and denounce anything outside your view as nutty?

j-mac

If you look, there's even a thread on one such study.

Tax breaks aren't a good way to create jobs.

That's the central point of a study released this week by the backers of Proposition 24, a state ballot initiative that would roll back three business tax breaks approved by the Legislature in 2008 and 2009.

Study: Tax breaks hurt, don't help - DailyBulletin.com

(1) In a 2002 article in the National Tax Journal by William Gale and Samara Potter concluded that the Bush tax cuts reduced the size of the economy. As we have stressed in these posts, the distinction between debt-financed and budget-neutral tax cuts is crucial:

Our results do not show that reductions in tax rates have no effect, or negative effects on economic behavior. Rather, the improved incentives--analyzed in isolation--unambiguously increase economic activity, by raising labor supply, human capital, and private saving. Indeed, these factors raise the size of the economy by almost 1 percent. But [the 2001 tax cut] is a set of incentives-- financed by a reduction in public saving. The key point for understanding the growth effects is that the tax-induced increase in private saving is a only a small faction of the decline in public saving, so that [overall] national saving falls substantially. The decline in national saving reduces the capital stock, even after adjusting for international capital flows, by sufficient amounts to reduce GDP and GNP.

tax.com: Tax Cuts Kill Jobs, Part 2

Similarly, a series of tax cuts in 2003 fell far short of targeted job growth. The Bush administration claimed the tax cuts would create 1.4 million jobs, in addition to some 4.1 million jobs expected to be generated over an 18-month period. But EPI tracked the initiative and found that not only did the additional 1.4 million jobs not appear, but the 4.1 million jobs that had been expected without the tax cuts never materialized either. By the end, the economy only saw an additional 2.4 million jobs added to the economy.

Tax cuts won’t create jobs

From your article:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest “bang for the buck,” because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.

News Headlines

Whovian · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
We've seen the study showing tax cuts would not create jobs.

j-mac said:
What studies are these, can you post them for scrutiny? Or will you just jab some more and denounce anything outside your view as nutty?

j-mac

Technically, he's not completely incorrect...
Sales tax cut would create 27,199 jobs, study says - The Boston Globe

The proposed sales tax cut on the Nov. 2 ballot would create 27,199 private-sector jobs, increase annual investment by $73 million, and raise wages by $1.03 billion, according to a new study.

However, it goes on to say...

Beacon Hill Institute officials said the modeling they used in their analysis determined that the revenue loss to government from the sales tax cut would require the public sector to shed 9,885 jobs.

So, the study shows a net increase of over 17,000 jobs.

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

washunut said:
All I am saying that it would make sense to do this thing as a package. This will insure that there is some balance. Also we do not know what exactly this committee will recommend. For all I know they will say that there should be another level of taxes for people over $5 million at a 60% rate. Ot they recommend a VAT tax, etc.

So we are two months from the date the president set for these folks to report out. We do not even have a budget for 2010-2011 yet.

I would like to see the comittee's recommendations voted like the base closings staight up or down. The process gets screwed up by changing tax policy before the vote.

I have no argument aganst doing it as a package. That would work well for me. And will support anyone calling for both. But I won't give up one for the other or because we don't have the other yet.