Wild Spending Continues

[Umaro]

I practically died laughing when I heard from the left that unemployment does more to stimulate the economy than tax cuts. <snip>

So if cutting taxes stimulates the economy, why have things been getting progressively worse over the last decade or so? Why didn't those tax cuts help at all?

 

[kermit]

Yup, tax cuts, especially for the rich, are pretty much a waste of money.

It is pretty much accepted by all that extending the tax cut for the rich will add to the deficit. That means tax rates are on the left side of the Laffer curve. When you are on the left side of the curve it means that lowering taxes does not have a stimulous effect on the economy.

 

[questftbest]

Taxes will never create wealth...hard work does. Those addicted to wild and irresponsible goverment spending just want more and more but eventually even they will run out of other people's money. Poor people don't create jobs folks. Nearly 1/2 of all the people in this country pay zero Federal income taxes...NEARLY HALF!!! How is that a fair system?

 

[blueapplepaste]

Taxes will never create wealth...hard work does. Those addicted to wild and irresponsible goverment spending just want more and more but eventually even they will run out of other people's money. Poor people don't create jobs folks. Nearly 1/2 of all the people in this country pay zero Federal income taxes...NEARLY HALF!!! How is that a fair system?

You can continue to ignore the facts and subscribe to the myths perpetuated by the right and the rich elite, but cutting taxes for the rich doesn't help the economy. It only helps the rich.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Taxes will never create wealth...hard work does. Those addicted to wild and irresponsible goverment spending just want more and more but eventually even they will run out of other people's money. Poor people don't create jobs folks. Nearly 1/2 of all the people in this country pay zero Federal income taxes...NEARLY HALF!!! How is that a fair system?

As long as the top 10% own 80% of all financial assets, my sympathy for them is limited.

 

[lordbt]

As long as the top 10% own 80% of all financial assets, my sympathy for them is limited.

No one is asking for your sympathy. What is expected of you is that you respect their rights. Too much to ask, apparently.

 

[Belk]

No one is asking for your sympathy. What is expected of you is that you respect their rights. Too much to ask, apparently.

What right is not being respected?

 

[lordbt]

What right is not being respected?

Property rights. What he seemed to be saying was that since some people possess too much property (in his opinion) he has no sympathy for them. That means he has no problem with the forcible confiscation of that 'excess' property for his own use. The rich man has as much right to his millionth dollar as the poor man has to his only dollar.

 

[Thekla]

With nothing to spend, the "poor man" will keep his dollar - or it won't buy much. That's lovely for the business sector, who can make money from air and keep it

Guess that's why speculation is driving up commodities futures again (can we starve another 250 million this time ?).

Interesting chart on wealth disparity pre-market crashes:

Is There a Causal Connection Between Extreme Inequality and Economic Crises?
More to the point, most mainstream economists do not believe there is a causal connection between inequality and severe downturns.
But recent studies by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty are waking up more and more economists to the possibility that there may be a connection.
Specifically, economics professors Saez (UC Berkeley) and Piketty (Paris School of Economics) show that the percentage of wealth held by the richest 1% of Americans peaked in 1928 and 2007 - right before each crash.


Krugman says that he used to dismiss talk that inequality contributed to crises, but then we reached Great Depression-era levels of inequality in 2007 and promptly had a crisis, so now he takes it a bit more seriously.
The problem, he says, is finding a mechanism. Krugman brings up underconsumption (wherein the working class borrows a lot of money because all the money is going to the rich) and overconsumption (in which the rich spend and that makes the next-most rich spend and so on, until everyone is spending too much to keep up with rich people whose incomes are growing much faster than everyone else's).

Washington's Blog


That's encouraging, huh


Course, decent jobs and pay might help ... but market roller coaster rides are just too much fun !

Who needs taxes ? Well, Wall Street may be on the rocks again ...

 

[Moncus]

The republicans seem to be supporting Obama extending the bush tax cuts while, at the same time, seem to be ignoring the ridiculous amount of spending that's being packed into the bill on the side. So by not raising taxes and spending more we're lowering the deficit? This is just the worst of both worlds.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Feel better now you got that nonsensical screed out of your system?

I do actually - which is why I wrote it; however it's neither nonsensical nor is it a screed. It may be to you, but that doesn't make it so.

Give an unemployed person unemployment benefits and it goes straight from hand to mouth. It's stimulative because they save nothing and spend all of it whilst they're looking for work.

Then an economy comprised of nothing but the unemployed would be a good thing...

Your general premise is way off here, which is why you're missing the bigger point. I do not deny that when the unemployed spend their unemployment checks they have an impact on the economy. Neither to I deny that unemployment benefits to help a person out between jobs is a good thing.

Give someone earning a very good wage a tax break and they'll likely not spend all of it, and very few will use it to create the mythical jobs conservatives seem to fantasise will appear one day.

Prove it. Prove further what monies they do spend won't contribute as much to the economy as those monies spent by the unemployed. That's your premise here and I don't buy it.

Wage earners, by definition, aren't job creators - just a little tidbit worth noting.

So you know, and to put a stop to the silly, nonsensical strawman you've erected - business owners are the ones who primarily fund the unemployed. They're the ones who shell out the monies so the unemployed can "stimulate" the economy. And business owners, by definition ARE job creators, and unemployment compensation is a huge burden to business - a "double whammy" if you will, because having to let someone go is, but for a few exceptions a function of seeing their business drop; the double-whammy coming when they now have to support a non-productive "employee" to boot - someone who no longer contributes to their business.

Your screed has no merit whatsoever, no basis in reality.

Nobody is arguing that unemployment is more stimulative than employment, so you can put that little strawman back in the cupboard with the rest of your platitudes.

Really? Because there sure seems to be an inordinate emphasis in favor of it, from the president on down who've explicitly stated unemployment stimulates the economy - and an inordinate opposition to tax cuts whenever the phrase is used.

When you favor unemployment and oppose reducing the tax burden, you absolutely are arguing unemployment is more stimulative than employment.

 

[Thekla]

If wage earners don't spend, what need is there to create new jobs ?

 

[EdwinWillers]

The republicans seem to be supporting Obama extending the bush tax cuts while, at the same time, seem to be ignoring the ridiculous amount of spending that's being packed into the bill on the side. So by not raising taxes and spending more we're lowering the deficit? This is just the worst of both worlds.

Actually, they're the ones proposing the extension of the current tax rates, and conservatives in general would be in favor of cutting them even further. Obama is trying to save his political hide, knowing the majority of Americans favor these things too.

As to ignoring the spending issue - yeah, someone in congress needs to take a stance on spending. And frankly, I don't care who it is, dem or rep - as long as they're doing it out of principle. We've got to curtail spending and NOW.

But your last statement contains an error - cutting taxes has always generated greater revenues for government, so that's a good thing as far as revenues are concerned. It's erroneous to think we need to raise taxes and cut spending to lower the deficit. It makes sense perhaps for individuals - to increase their income and pay down their debt as fast as possible; but congress has rarely, if ever demonstrated that discipline - certainly not in the last century. If there's money to spend, they'll spend it. That's just how congress is. Would that we had a president like Coolidge or others of his ilk who realized just how detrimental to the nation an ever-increasing debt was to our fiscal credibility.

We need to cut taxes and cut spending at the same time. That's the only practical solution to our deficit - and to our economic health for that matter.

 

[jgarden]

Wild spending continues to no avail in the lame duck session. Extremists on the left are in love with earmarks and can't stop their spending orgy. What an OUTRAGE!!!

***************************************************************************************************

Anti-earmark Tea Party Caucus takes $1 billion in earmarks
Dec 2, 2010

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

"It's disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks."

..... Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), for one, attached his name to 69 earmarks in the last fiscal year, for a total of $78,263,000. The 41 earmarks Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) requested were worth $65,395,000. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) wanted $63,400,000 for 39 special projects, and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) wanted $93,980,000 set aside for 47 projects.

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) takes the prize as the tea partier with his name on the most earmarks. Rehberg's office requested funding for 88 projects, either solely or by co-signing earmark requests with Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Jon Tester (D), at a cost of $100,514,200. On his own, Rehberg requested 20 earmarks valued at more than $9.6 million.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclu...-tea-party-caucus-takes-1-billion-in-earmarks

Can you hear the collective "hissing" sound of "hot air" escaping from "questftbest's" and the Tea Party Caucus' balloons?

 

[oldbetang]

So if cutting taxes stimulates the economy, why have things been getting progressively worse over the last decade or so? Why didn't those tax cuts help at all?

Those tax cuts were pretty small potatoes and they still helped some. However, if you want more obvious cases of tax cuts stimulating the economy you have to go back to Reagan's tax cuts, and before that Kennedy's. Both were massive cuts in tax rates and both resulted in huge economic booms.

 

[oldbetang]

***************************************************************************************************

Can you hear the collective "hissing" sound of "hot air" escaping from "questftbest's" and the Tea Party Caucus' balloons?

That was old news. The $1 billion pales in comparison to the $80 billion from the Democrats. Most importantly, the bill never passed.

 

[Moncus]

But your last statement contains an error - cutting taxes has always generated greater revenues for government, so that's a good thing as far as revenues are concerned.

Actually, this "compromise" is only maintaining current taxes (not lowering), so we're not cutting taxes we're just keeping the status quo. What i meant by "not raising taxes" (which seems to be the republicans end of the compromise) was it isn't accomplishing anything and neither is spending more.

 

[Belk]

That was old news. The $1 billion pales in comparison to the $80 billion from the Democrats. Most importantly, the bill never passed.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Hey, look over there, a democrat."

 

[blueapplepaste]

That was old news. The $1 billion pales in comparison to the $80 billion from the Democrats. Most importantly, the bill never passed.

Ah, so because the Dems do it, that negates the hypocrisy from the Tea Party politicians?

 

[Staccato]

Then an economy comprised of nothing but the unemployed would be a good thing...

Don't be obtuse. No it wouldn't, because unemployment is not more stimulative than employment. Again, no-one, despite your claims, is arguing this. Unemployment benefits are more stimulative than unemployment.

Your general premise is way off here, which is why you're missing the bigger point. I do not deny that when the unemployed spend their unemployment checks they have an impact on the economy. Neither to I deny that unemployment benefits to help a person out between jobs is a good thing.

Good, then we were never in disagreement on this point.

Prove it. Prove further what monies they do spend won't contribute as much to the economy as those monies spent by the unemployed. That's your premise here and I don't buy it.

No, that's not my premise. I'm not equivalising the two. What I am saying is that whilst unemployment benefit is inarguably stimulative, a top-band tax break has questionable or at least debateable stimulative properties. Because the betterment of the economy as a whole is supposedly our goal, as opposed to the implementation of ideological economics, I don't see how the GOP can support the latter, saying it is paid for and wonderful, and reject the former, saying it isn't and therefore bad.

Wage earners, by definition, aren't job creators - just a little tidbit worth noting.

Admittedly so, I should have said 'income' as opposed to 'wage'.

So you know, and to put a stop to the silly, nonsensical strawman you've erected

Stop stealing my phraseology

business owners are the ones who primarily fund the unemployed. They're the ones who shell out the monies so the unemployed can "stimulate" the economy. And business owners, by definition ARE job creators, and unemployment compensation is a huge burden to business - a "double whammy" if you will, because having to let someone go is, but for a few exceptions a function of seeing their business drop; the double-whammy coming when they now have to support a non-productive "employee" to boot - someone who no longer contributes to their business.

Your alternative?

Your screed has no merit whatsoever, no basis in reality.

This is coming from someone who spent half their post ranting about how the 'far left' wants to keep the unemployed, unemployed in order to feather their voting bloc and force them to be worshipped as gods.

Physician, heal thyself.

Really? Because there sure seems to be an inordinate emphasis in favor of it, from the president on down who've explicitly stated unemployment stimulates the economy

Unemployment BENEFIT most likely. Otherwise, quote please.

and an inordinate opposition to tax cuts whenever the phrase is used.

You mean like when Obama cut taxes on folks with low and middle incomes in...early 2009 I think it was, and many on the right refused to accept reality and kept saying he'd given them a tax rise?

Also, when you've got a Republican House and Senate delegation who keep banging on about a balanced budget, how do they think we're going to get there when they want to:
1. Cut taxes
2. Not address defence spending
3. Insist on tacking pork onto every bill (Democrats are guilty of this too of course)

Cutting taxes and somehow balancing it by slashing entitlements without a massive, almost complete, loss of function only works in magical fantasy land.

When you favor unemployment and oppose reducing the tax burden, you absolutely are arguing unemployment is more stimulative than employment.

"Favour" unemployment? What, by giving them a small stipend which is barely enough to live on? Oh yeah, that's the quilted cushion experience right there. Again, you're being deliberately obtuse, please stop.