• 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!

Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

ptif219 said:
So you think government does a better job with your money then you do?
Click to expand...

No need to put words into my mouth. The fact remains, the tax cuts were saved and not spent, therefore negating the purpose of the stimulus. Unless of course..... national savings (borrowing from abroad) does not matter much.
 
The Prof said:
ap TODAY:

Foreigners cut Treasury stakes; rates could rise - Yahoo! Finance

RECORD DROP IN FOREIGN HOLDINGS OF US TREASURIES IN DECEMBER

53 billion

mostly china, of course

GREATEST MONTHLY DECLINE IN FOREIGN HOLDINGS OF UNITED STATES T BILLS IN ALL THE LONG HISTORY OF THE WHOLE WORLD

!!!

big news, no?

i wonder what it could possibly mean

LOL!

and THIS is all DESPITE what's going on in europe

hard rain's a comin, folks

doctor deficit doesn't know what he's doing
Click to expand...

Tell us about the personal wealth situation in China.

This should be fun.

What is the function of savings???

:rofl
 
Goldenboy219 said:
No need to put words into my mouth. The fact remains, the tax cuts were saved and not spent, therefore negating the purpose of the stimulus. Unless of course..... national savings (borrowing from abroad) does not matter much.
Click to expand...

Critics of Tax Cuts Were Wrong, Bush Says


Since 2001, the tax relief we delivered has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, and small businesses, and families like yours, and you used that money to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth. Last year, our economy grew at a healthy 3.5 percent, faster than any other major industrialized nation.

One politician in Washington said in 2003 that our tax cuts were "ruining our economy and costing us jobs." The truth is that since August 2003, America has added almost 5 million new jobs. Our unemployment rate is now 4.8 percent -- lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income is up 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001. More Americans now own their own homes than at any time in our history, and minority homeownership is at record levels. Consumer confidence is at its highest level in nearly four years. Productivity has grown strongly over the past five years, and our small business sector is thriving.
 
ptif219 said:
So then Obama is digging a deeper hole with no way out.
Click to expand...

There is a way out but it it in the future, 10 years out at least in my opinion

To use your hole analogy

Without government stimulus

You and your family walk up to the grand canyon, stand on the edge, and someone pushes you and your family over the edge. You and your family go tumbling down, hitting the sharp rock edges breaking bones on the way. Perhaps one or more die from the fall. You fell 200 feet very quickly and violently. Now you are free to take your remaingly family members out of the canyon. It will take time to climb out of it but you will

With government stimulus

You stand at the edge of the grand canyon with your family, a group of banksters forces you and your family to walk to the bottom of the grand canyon, it takes a while, no one is injuried, or potentially killed, but you had to walk down total of 300 feet, you can now walk out, but it is going to take even longer then without government stimulus.
 
ptif219 said:
Critics of Tax Cuts Were Wrong, Bush Says


Since 2001, the tax relief we delivered has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, and small businesses, and families like yours, and you used that money to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth. Last year, our economy grew at a healthy 3.5 percent, faster than any other major industrialized nation.

One politician in Washington said in 2003 that our tax cuts were "ruining our economy and costing us jobs." The truth is that since August 2003, America has added almost 5 million new jobs. Our unemployment rate is now 4.8 percent -- lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income is up 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001. More Americans now own their own homes than at any time in our history, and minority homeownership is at record levels. Consumer confidence is at its highest level in nearly four years. Productivity has grown strongly over the past five years, and our small business sector is thriving.
Click to expand...

And Bush was a certifiable moron when it came to the economy

Look at what he is promoting
More Americans now own their own homes than at any time in our history, and minority homeownership is at record levels
Click to expand...
The unsustainable rise in the housing industry is why the boom occurred and why the bust occured
 
The Prof said:
what a poser
Click to expand...

Come on and make an adequate response.

Has the wealth in China risen? If not then show a savings decrease.... At least attempt to be relevant.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
There is a way out but it it in the future, 10 years out at least in my opinion

To use your hole analogy

Without government stimulus

You and your family walk up to the grand canyon, stand on the edge, and someone pushes you and your family over the edge. You and your family go tumbling down, hitting the sharp rock edges breaking bones on the way. Perhaps one or more die from the fall. You fell 200 feet very quickly and violently. Now you are free to take your remaingly family members out of the canyon. It will take time to climb out of it but you will

With government stimulus

You stand at the edge of the grand canyon with your family, a group of banksters forces you and your family to walk to the bottom of the grand canyon, it takes a while, no one is injuried, or potentially killed, but you had to walk down total of 300 feet, you can now walk out, but it is going to take even longer then without government stimulus.
Click to expand...

If it takes 10 years then what is being done is not working. Government spending will not get us out it will prolong it hence your 10 year estimate.

We need the private sector to grow and hire.
 
ptif219 said:
If it takes 10 years then what is being done is not working. Government spending will not get us out it will prolong it hence your 10 year estimate.

We need the private sector to grow and hire.
Click to expand...

The private sector is so deep in debt that it wont (overall)
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
And Bush was a certifiable moron when it came to the economy

Look at what he is promoting The unsustainable rise in the housing industry is why the boom occurred and why the bust occured
Click to expand...

I notice you show no links when I ask.

The housing boom started under Clinton who passed bills to make it happen it was not all Bush.

Tax cuts help small business and others expand and grow which means they hire people.
 
ptif219 said:
I notice you show no links when I ask.

The housing boom started under Clinton who passed bills to make it happen it was not all Bush.

Tax cuts help small business and others expand and grow which means they hire people.
Click to expand...

Did I blame Bush for the housing boom?


I blame the fed the most.

The links are easy to find if you dont believe me

And tax cuts without spending cuts will result in government deficits (ie the government stimulating the economy

But overall if people do not have money to spend on goods, business will not expand, meaning they wont hire people.

Which in such cases tax cuts will do nothing to stimulate the economy.

If people have money but are not spending it then yes tax cuts could work to stimulate the economy
 
It could be that not having the first clue has been mistaken as being agnostic.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Did I blame Bush for the housing boom?


I blame the fed the most.

The links are easy to find if you dont believe me

And tax cuts without spending cuts will result in government deficits (ie the government stimulating the economy

But overall if people do not have money to spend on goods, business will not expand, meaning they wont hire people.

Which in such cases tax cuts will do nothing to stimulate the economy.

If people have money but are not spending it then yes tax cuts could work to stimulate the economy
Click to expand...

I am not your researcher.


Tax Cut Government Income Cuts Rate Argue Effects Economy

A tax cut is a reduction in the rate of tax charged by a government, for example on personal or corporate income. Whether a given tax cut will increase or decrease total tax revenues is much discussed by both economists and politicians.

The immediate effects of a tax cut are, generally, a decrease in the real income of the government and to increase the real income of those whose tax rate has been lowered. In the longer term, however, the effect on government income may be reversed, depending on the response that tax-payers make. Supply-siders argue that tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals provide them an incentive for investments which stimulate so much economic activity that even at the lower rate more net tax revenue will be collected.

Some economists argue that even in the short term cutting some taxes, for example capital gains tax, may raise government income immediately due to long-postponed sales of securities being made at the lower rate.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Here you go

Debt-To-GDP Chart "Wrong," US Debt Levels Fine

Look at the charts and not the moronic commentary by Blodget
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with post 224

What does it have to do with private sector?

The private sector will not grow with new taxes.
Bottom line business does not trust Obama after watching what he did with the bailouts.

http://www.redstate.com/congressman...he-private-sector-sees-the-big-sticks-coming/


Did you catch that little two-step? Small businesses can get money for lending that comes from TARP but somehow…isn’t TARP. The distinction sounds like nothing more than window dressing, but why hide the truth? Maybe it’s because past TARP recipients (sometimes forced recipients) have been stigmatized and demonized by their association with this seemingly endless bailout fund. Or maybe it’s because businesses have learned an important lesson about TARP: where there’s a carrot, there will be sticks. Big sticks, and if I was a business owner considering an entanglement with TARP, I’d be more than a little wary of getting whacked.

Anyone can see that small businesses have been struggling. But even if President Obama assigned every last penny of TARP to this new TARP-redux for small businesses, he still won’t have addressed the real issue preventing robust private sector growth – the looming impact of smothering new taxes, mandates, regulations, and payoffs for Big Labor. These are some serious sticks that will beat down private enterprise with or without a loan from TARP.

If we continue down this path, the sustainable economic growth and long-term job creation we want simply won’t appear. Instead, we need to provide a commerce-friendly environment of lower taxes, lower debt, and lower spending. Not to mention we need to close down TARP to prevent the White House from using $700 billion of your money to bailout whatever company, industry, or sector it wants.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
That has nothing to do with post 224
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it

It show the private sector debt in relation to the GDP

It shows that private sector debt in the US is at least 75% higher then past averages

Which means that the private sector is in debt to far higher level in the past. Do you think that when debt levels are already higher, people and business should take on even more debt. Such high debt levels generally should indicate that lowering the debt is going to be in order, not increasing it. To increase it makes the chance of defaulting higher, not a good thing.
 
ptif219 said:
I am not your researcher.


Tax Cut Government Income Cuts Rate Argue Effects Economy

A tax cut is a reduction in the rate of tax charged by a government, for example on personal or corporate income. Whether a given tax cut will increase or decrease total tax revenues is much discussed by both economists and politicians.

The immediate effects of a tax cut are, generally, a decrease in the real income of the government and to increase the real income of those whose tax rate has been lowered. In the longer term, however, the effect on government income may be reversed, depending on the response that tax-payers make. Supply-siders argue that tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals provide them an incentive for investments which stimulate so much economic activity that even at the lower rate more net tax revenue will be collected.

Some economists argue that even in the short term cutting some taxes, for example capital gains tax, may raise government income immediately due to long-postponed sales of securities being made at the lower rate.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts can stimulate the economy or they can do nothing

If the US government gave everyone who paid federa income tax a $1000 tax cut (just as an example amount) and 75% of the people who received the tax cut used it to pay down debt rather then invest in capital equipement or spending it on goods, then the 75% would not have stimulated the economy

And if the government cut spending by an equal amount to the total cost of the tax cut, the overall effect on the economy would not be stimulative but subtract from the economy as overall activity would have decreased not increased. If the government borrowed the money to pay for the tax cut then it would be stimulative, but inefficient in doing so
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
It has everything to do with it

It show the private sector debt in relation to the GDP

It shows that private sector debt in the US is at least 75% higher then past averages

Which means that the private sector is in debt to far higher level in the past. Do you think that when debt levels are already higher, people and business should take on even more debt. Such high debt levels generally should indicate that lowering the debt is going to be in order, not increasing it. To increase it makes the chance of defaulting higher, not a good thing.
Click to expand...

Yet the sight says it may be wrong.
 
ptif219 said:
Yet the sight says it may be wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes the sight says it is wrong but what do you say

Do you feel comfortable as a person with total debts 4 times your annual earning and taking on more debt


Or would you feel more comfortable with a debt load only 2 times your annual earnings and taking on more debt

That iis basically what the charts are saying

It is the overall amount of private sector debt in relation to the GDP. It is at historic highs as of the article. Do you honestly feel that taking on more debt is going to be the answer to the economic crisis. If so go get a credit card and max it out right now

Do exactly what the government is doing, basically
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yes the sight says it is wrong but what do you say

Do you feel comfortable as a person with total debts 4 times your annual earning and taking on more debt


Or would you feel more comfortable with a debt load only 2 times your annual earnings and taking on more debt

That iis basically what the charts are saying

It is the overall amount of private sector debt in relation to the GDP. It is at historic highs as of the article. Do you honestly feel that taking on more debt is going to be the answer to the economic crisis. If so go get a credit card and max it out right now

Do exactly what the government is doing, basically
Click to expand...

I say if they trusted Obama they would move. They seen Obama's control during the TARP and bailouts and do not trust him. Obama has not shown he supports business but rather that Obama thinks government is the answer.

Obama has screwed himself and us.
 
ptif219 said:
I am not your researcher.


Tax Cut Government Income Cuts Rate Argue Effects Economy

A tax cut is a reduction in the rate of tax charged by a government, for example on personal or corporate income. Whether a given tax cut will increase or decrease total tax revenues is much discussed by both economists and politicians.

The immediate effects of a tax cut are, generally, a decrease in the real income of the government and to increase the real income of those whose tax rate has been lowered. In the longer term, however, the effect on government income may be reversed, depending on the response that tax-payers make. Supply-siders argue that tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals provide them an incentive for investments which stimulate so much economic activity that even at the lower rate more net tax revenue will be collected.

Some economists argue that even in the short term cutting some taxes, for example capital gains tax, may raise government income immediately due to long-postponed sales of securities being made at the lower rate.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts that are saved will have no short term effects on boosting aggregate demand, and therefore will only increase budget deficits without equal cuts in spending.

Now..... If the Ricardian equivalence does not hold, tax cuts will boost aggregate demand because people will spend. We can either spend or save, and investment does not equal saving (it is still considered spending). Why would this happen? Lets assume that a country has a huge stock of debt to coincide with the new budget deficit that is created. If consumers believe that the tax cuts are only temporary and consider the fiscal path, then of course they will save to offset subsequent tax hikes.

Do you understand?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Tax cuts that are saved will have no short term effects on boosting aggregate demand, and therefore will only increase budget deficits without equal cuts in spending.

Now..... If the Ricardian equivalence does not hold, tax cuts will boost aggregate demand because people will spend. We can either spend or save, and investment does not equal saving (it is still considered spending). Why would this happen? Lets assume that a country has a huge stock of debt to coincide with the new budget deficit that is created. If consumers believe that the tax cuts are only temporary and consider the fiscal path, then of course they will save to offset subsequent tax hikes.

Do you understand?
Click to expand...

That is why the Bush tax cuts should have been permanent but the dems would not allow that
 
Goldenboy219 said:
So say what you want about macro stabilizers, the fact of the matter remains.....
Doing nothing would have been worse. How much worse? Think 1930's worse.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for thos 'fact' to be proven as true.

Withoug said proof, any premise which rests on this argument is necessarily unsound.
 
Goobieman said:
Still waiting for thos 'fact' to be proven as true.

Withoug said proof, any premise which rests on this argument is necessarily unsound.
Click to expand...

Government bonds are the standard by which all bonds are rated. Therefore, they strongly reflect the strength of a countries financial sector.

Lets look at a few graphs.

tbill_ff_oct_08.png


Compare this to the 30's

graph_t-bill_3.gif


The 10 year treasury note

bonds.png


The 30 yr bond

3475294498_4b45f68d4f_o.png


Why did yields drop in all government bonds? The financial sector was running for shelter, putting money into the safest place possible, government bonds. Yields went negative on 1 month treasury bills. Banks were paying the government to use there money. This all happened because one investment bank, Lieman Brothers, collapsed. Do you think we could have allowed another large investment bank to collapse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom