Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Lucas]

1bad, would you sleep with a hot welfare mama? If she did bjj?

what if she only did BJ?

[cjurakpt]

that guy might have my vote too. down with the hornswagglers!!!!

not to mention jakers, jukers, flim-flam men and four-flushers (????)

[1bad65]

So, links to comments by conservative economists and the CBO is opinion? Did you actually read what I linked to?

I'm too busy to read the CBO report at work, I admit that. I'll do it later.

But the other link was an opinion piece. No matter who wrote it.

[1bad65]

what if she only did BJ?

I'm married, so I do not get to partake in such activities.

[1bad65]

I need you guys to answer the 2 simple questions I've repeatedly asked.

I've answered yours, so answer mine.

[Reality_Check]

I'm too busy to read the CBO report at work, I admit that. I'll do it later.

But the other link was an opinion piece. No matter who wrote it.

What about the quotes by Alan Viard (former economist for George Bush), Gregory Mankiw (former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers), Henry Paulson (current Secretary of the Treasury), Edward Lazear (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers) and Alan Greenspan? They are all conservatives, and they all say that tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Regarding Bruce Barlett (senior policy analyst in the White House Office of Policy Development under Reagan), I suppose that can be considered an op-ed. What about this?

"...according to CBO, the revenue increase from TEFRA amounted to about 1.2 percent of GDP."

http://www.cbpp.org/2-6-01tax2.htm

[1bad65]

Yes, those are all opinions.

"...according to CBO, the revenue increase from TEFRA amounted to about 1.2 percent of GDP.'

But it would have been more with a tax cut instead!

I'm catching on!


Answer my questions now.

[Reality_Check]

Population growth does not equal more workers INSTANTLY. a good portion of population growth is newborn children. I dont think they enter the workforce for many years.

Do you have any support for this?

I said precise numbers. If you cannot see that EVERY TIME tax cuts have been enacted it sprurred economic growth and increased revenue, I'll just quit now. It will be akin to aguing mathematics to a guy who cannot accept 2+2=4. We will make no progress.

What about this? Very interesting read, it explores the effects of a 10% tax cut over the long run.

http://www.house.gov/jct/x-19-06.pdf

[Reality_Check]

Yes, those are all opinions.

But, since they don't match your opinion, they are invalid?

But it would have been more with a tax cut instead!

Evidence?

[Reality_Check]

While I'm sure this is all for naught, I'll try.

"According to supply-side founder and former Reagan advisor Arthur Laffer, capitalism has finally come to Russia. In a recent article, the California economist points out that as of January 1, 2001, the highly progressive, anti-growth, and incredibly complex Russian tax-rate system was replaced by a 13% flat tax. Corporate taxes are next in line to fall.

By taxing work, production, and investment less, Russia can now boast of a 40% year-to-date stock-market gain. Compared to Germany's 10% drop, or Japan's 13% loss, or the U.S.'s 11% setback, Russia -- all of a sudden -- is looking pretty good."

Source: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/torussia.htm

The Russian stock market has lost 64% of it's value since the beginning of July.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...917_169033.htm

[Hebrew Hammer]

Leave no doubt that anything that comes out of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a work of fiction.

[Water Dragon]

So, your saying the tax recepts went down? Let's get a straight answer now, as CBO and IRS numbers can prove who is right.

And yet again when I point out, with evidence, that my assertions were correct, you still won't admit I was correct. First it was 'but there would have been more', now it's 'there are many other factors involved'.

Let me ask you this; Can you name JUST ONE society/country/empire that has taxed itself into prosperity?

OK, let me try to 'splain myself again. To do this, I need to give you a "Yes, but" answer.

Yes, lowering taxes has the effect of creating demand which will help stimulate GDP growth, but that's only one side of the coin. You have to look at the entire picture to understand how tax policy should work in relation to economics.

First, we need to define what fiscal policy is. Fiscal policy is basically using taxation and spending to control economic growth. Lowering taxes injects more money into the taxpayers pockets. This creates demand for goods which stimulates economic growth. Increasing spending has the same effect as the gov't is injecting money into the economy through gov't spending.

(as a side note, this becomes a powerful argument for the justification of welfare policies in that it will inject money into the economy. If trickle down economics work, trickle up economics must work as well. What's important is that money is injected into the economy. How it's injected is relatively unimportant from the economic view.)

Now here's the other side of the coin. Just like individuals, Governents simply cannot continually spend more than they make and survive. Fiscal policy is well known for it's ability to redistribute wealth between social class. Tax the rich more than the poor and you effectively pull off a "Robin Hood" type redistribution. Fiscal policy can also redistribute wealth between generations. Every time we run a defecit, we are pushing our debt onto future generations. Don't believe me? Ask yourself this, is our generation better off than our parents? For the first time in the history of this country we cannot say yes. I personally feel this is the first step of the defecit coming due. The upcoming social security crises will probably be the next.

So we must raise taxes at times as well as lower them. Believe it or not, there are real benefits to raising taxes as well. Raising taxes pulls money out of the hands of the consumer, which is very effective at controlling inflation as well as bringing in more tax revenue. What SHOULD happen is that we should lower taxes and increase spending during times of economic recession which will inject much needed cash into the economy. This will generate a defecit. We should raise taxes during times of economic growth to help curb inflation and create a reserve to cancel out the defecit generated during recession or war.

Unfortunately, we have turned fiscal policy into a political rather than an economic tool. If we compare the situation of the gov't to an individual. We are the guy with $ 100,000 on credit cards and two mortgages we can't pay. We keep using the credit card to pay the mortgage and hope it doesn't catch up with us. In the same way the individual now has to pick up a second job to bring in enough income to cover that debt, we need to raise taxes enough to start paying this debt. It's gonna take a long time, and it's gonna suck for everyone, but it needs to happen.

After the big Reagan tax cuts, the same administration had to raise taxes six times. Bush raised taxes, as well as Clinton It was not until the Clinton Administration that taxes were at a high enough levels to create a surplus.

Yes, you're correct that lowering taxes can stimulate the GDP and a bigger base can bring in more income. If we're running defecits to achieve that, we're not gaining any real ground, we're using our gov't credit card. In addition, by always trying to keep taxes low, we take away our ability to use tax policy as an economic tool. What do you think would happen if tomorrow Congress gave a signifigant tax deduction to any bank the lends out a certain percentage of it's reserves and increased taxes on companies who held reserves at too high a level? Well, banks would loan out money, people could start buying homes again which would stabilize the market and put the brakes on this recession. Unfortunately we f@cked up fiscal policy so badly this is not an option we have available to us.

That's what I feel you're missing, Bro.

[bakxierboxer]

(as a side note, this becomes a powerful argument for the justification of welfare policies in that it will inject money into the economy. If trickle down economics work, trickle up economics must work as well.

Looks like "all you guys" do your mental/philosophical shopping at "Non Sequiturs R Us"........

[BoulderDawg]

Several things:

what do you mean by "reserves"?

Nobody (Bank, business, public, private) wants to hold money in reserve. Most banks are required by charter to hold a certain percentage of funds however this is not by choice.

Also "first time in history we are worse off than our folks"....That's happened many times throughout our history. The economy is cyclical. However in my father's time in the 50s/60s a blue collar worker with a non working wife could buy a house/send his kids to college and retire with a little nest egg on his blue collar salary....That is not true today.

In any case this discussion on taxes is starting to go off the deep end. It's gotten to the point of Bluff and BS because most here haven't a clue as to what they are talking about.

You know Obama could very well raise taxes...as could McCain...I don't know about others but that has nothing to do with who I support. The republicans have gotten to the point of using everything imaginable (raise taxes, Muslim, Rev Wright) to try and hold on....it's not going to work.

As I have said in the past I will not vote for anyone in this election because there is not a candidate running who represents my views. That said I think Obama is running some pretty powerful ads showing McCain talking about how strong the economy is.......This kinda makes McCain look like an old fool. I guess it's time for McCain to drag out Paris Hilton again!

[Water Dragon]

OK, Banks by law have to keep a certain amount of cash on hand to cover withdrawals from checking and savings. These are known as reserves. Generally, banks want to keep theri reserves as low as possible so that they can maximize loan revenue. Problem is, banks are so freaked out right now, they're not giving anyone money. In fact, it's so bad that yesterday banks refused to lend to each other and the Libor basically doubled. This is not good juju because the whole problem in the financial sector involves cash drying up because everyone's hoarding it.

If the Fed placed a percentage cap on reserves, they could strongly encourage banks to loan out money be 'rewarding' those who do with tax breaks and 'punishing' those who don't with higher taxes. That's how fiscal policy should be used.

In reagard to the economic cycle, that's true. The economy IS cyclical, but the trend has always been upward. Now. we're starting to fall behind. Globalization is playing a big part in this as there is more competition, but debt is playing a big part.

I'm not sure what you mean by Bluff/BS. Is this in regard to myself? I was trained as an economist in college and have been a financial and investment advisor for the past ten years. I feel that as a professional in the field, I can talk about this subject fairly intelligently. Nothing that I am saying is political in nature. I am speaking from a purely economic viewpoint. I just want peple to understand the subject if they're going to argue it so they can make both logical arguments and informed voting decisions. I don't care who people vote for, as long as they know the issues and vote intelligently rather than emotionally.