"Unprecedented" disaster

[heckofajobbrownie]

Maybe we should stop doing anything that involves risk.

 

40,000 traffic fatalities a year.

 

WSS

 

What an absurd argument. In fact, there's a name for those types of arguments, and it's got the word "absurd" right in it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And Cal, you're just a dope. This is a study done by Stephen Moore. If you think Stephen Moore is non-partisan, you have no idea who Steven Moore is. (Which you don't.) They even spell out their agenda in the paragraph you posted. It's sort of funny.

 

But even more to the point, this study is about capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even if you agree that this analysis is correct, guess what? Those aren't the primary taxes we're talking about when we talk about the Bush tax cuts. We're talking about across the board income tax reductions. And those are the primary cause of the current deficits we face.

 

And I can't believe I wasted five minutes typing to you on a Saturday.

[calfoxwc]

No, we were talking about tax cuts.

 

You raise taxes, and it will hurt the economy.

 

Especially when we are fighting a War on Terror that

 

your president is too big a pansy to admit to.

 

That's it.

 

It's what you pitiful pouty libs do every time, diss the source,

 

diss the author,

 

whatever it takes, to deny reality.

 

I can't believe you are any smarter than the groundhogs out in one of our fields.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Raising taxes doesn't always hurt the economy. That's another simplistic lie you've been sold. It's easily repeatable, so you repeat it. But it's not true.

 

Remember when the Clinton tax hikes were going to destroy the economy? We hear this same trope from the right every time.

 

Well, what happened the last time Clinton raised taxes? We had serious economic growth, and ended up with a budget surplus.

 

Yes, can't let that happen again. Let's try the Bush formula instead. Worked so well.

[Mr. T]

We are facing the same type of economy now as we did with clinton's tax hikes.

 

Wall Street wins while Main Street suffers. Farewell to the middle class!

[calfoxwc]

two words:

 

Jimmy Carter.

 

Where we were was bad.

 

President Ronald Reagan got us out of that serious mire,

 

in a huge, huge way. He cut taxes.

 

Maybe you need a whole package of cookies, and a dairy cow. @@

[Westside Steve]

Raising taxes doesn't always hurt the economy. That's another simplistic lie you've been sold. It's easily repeatable, so you repeat it. But it's not true.

 

Must I repeat that Obama musta thought repealing the tax cuts would have made things worse not better?

If not he screwed us on purpose.

 

 

Remember when the Clinton tax hikes were going to destroy the economy? We hear this same trope from the right every time.

 

Hey imagine the growth without 'em!!!

(of course then came the downturn that Bush saved us from)

 

And: "

What an absurd argument. "

 

Good eye.

Keep it in mind when you make absurd statements.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Hey, Cal liked it. You must be making sense.

 

Yes, Steve. Tax cuts are like a knob that controls the entire economy. You turn it one way you get growth. The other way you crush it. Why go any further than that when you just stop right there and imagine you said something insightful?

 

And this is the problem. It's taking something terribly complex, and then distilling it down to something that's so simple it's repeatable, but also worthless. And then imagining that this passes for insight.

 

You can read the graph. You simply can't make the claim that Bush's tax cuts were good fiscal policy. For whatever boost the economy got out of it, they were the largest new factor in creating the current fiscal imbalance. They failed to "pay for themselves", as people who live in dream world like to think, and cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue.

 

If all we lived to do is maximize GDP growth, you might have a point. But we don't, so neither do you.

 

And if all you like to do is point to the benefits without being honest about the costs of achieving those benefits - or even admitting the size of the benefits - you should go back to night school.

[Westside Steve]

Hey, Cal liked it. You must be making sense.

 

Yes, Steve. Tax cuts are like a knob that controls the entire economy. You turn it one way you get growth. The other way you crush it. Why go any further than that when you just stop right there and imagine you said something insightful?

 

Ahh a useless Heckism.

The old "always" or "never" ploy.

 

Hey why not triple 'em? Think how rich we'd be then!!!!!

 

And this is the problem. It's taking something terribly complex, and then distilling it down to something that's so simple it's repeatable, but also worthless. And then imagining that this passes for insight.

 

 

Exactly.

Like the idea that higher taxes are the key to prosperity.

 

They aren't. They are more easily absorbed in times of prosperity.

Unfortunately when the bubbles burst they hurt.

 

No matter how "insightful" you think you are.

 

 

WSS

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

God, you're hopeless. You really are. You just can't graduate from this type of nonsense. You're not even on the right topic.

 

This isn't about taxes being wonderful, or the keys to prosperity. Taxes are, by their nature, inefficiencies. However, they also serve an important and obvious function, and that is to pay for government expenditures. And for years now we've decided that we should pay less in taxes, and spend far more than we bring in. And now that a Democrat is in office, the right is claiming to be worried about all of this, even though the majority of the new spending is to address the economic downturn, temporary, or, in the case of health care, paid for by new taxes and rules and efficiencies. Meanwhile, a large swath of the deficit is result of the revenue shortfall created by the Bush tax cuts. If you don't believe me, again, look at the graph. Or any other study of the budgetary effects of the Bush tax cuts.

 

The idea pushed and sold by the right - clearly false - is that the Bush tax cuts or any form of tax cuts create so much growth that they pay for themselves through higher economic growth and acitivity. It's an argument that can only be held in the conservative fantasy land. It bears no resemblance to reality. And yet we hear it all the time. You're repeating a variety of that line now. True supply-side economics doesn't even claim this to be true. The guy who invented the Laffer Curve on which this idea is (incorrectly) based even says his theory is wildly and widely misunderstood. And it's all proven to be untrue in reality, as you can see from the graph. You get a small bump in GDP growth from the increased amount of money in the economy, and you get a massive loss in tax revenue, which only means one thing - deferred tax increases.

 

A tax cut in a time of deficit is just a future tax increase. And cutting a few points off the current income tax rate structure does not pay for itself. It loses money. Lots of it, in fact.

 

Do you get that part? If you only argue one side of the equation - GDP growth - you aren't having an honest argument. It's like arguing that it's great to do meth because it makes you feel good, without discussing the downside. And then responding to this point by saying, "Couldn't you have stayed happier if you'd done even more meth?"

 

What happened to tax revenues after the Bush tax cuts? If we had left the rates where they were and had (slightly) less growth during the Bush years, would we have had more revenue or less?

 

Would we be in a better fiscal position now or worse?

 

That's the question. I know you'd rather keep repeating how lower taxes means more growth. But try to imagine that we've stipulated that basic and over-generalized notion, and moved on.

[calfoxwc]

Higher taxes never helps the middle class.

 

Never helps the rich.

 

but it helps the locked in Dem voters in every election.

 

fancy that.

 

I think Heck is already eating a cookie, with something strange in it...

[Westside Steve]

Would we be in a better fiscal position now or worse?

 

Oh about the same.

 

And then the Republicans could say it was Clinton's tax hikes that brought on the worst economy since blah blah blah.

 

Which is the real reason Obama doidn't repeal the tax cuts on day one.

 

It most lilely would make things worse and you guys would have to eat it. This way they remain the boogeyman!

 

Ironic that Clinton's success and Bush's downfall came with the change of power in the houses, since you bring it up .

 

But as far as your wonderful programs, yoou're right.

Nobody wants to dump them OR pay for them.

That's why it's easyt to blame the rich.

Hey if the crap is inefficient the average voter thinks it's paid for by the evil rich.

 

You get less bellyaching about free food.

(not none, but less)

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Embarrassing. Come on, man. You've got to do better than that. These are numbers. They're vastly different. The difference is counted in the hundreds of billions. And you suggest they're about the same, and there is no real difference.

 

Wow...

 

Steve, you have to learn more about this stuff. You really do. You're clearly out of your league, and out of things to say - Obama won't repeal the tax cuts, da evil rich, bellyaching, etc.

 

Every. Single. Post.

 

Or maybe I should stop giving you more credit than I give Cal. After all, if you said something about cookies at the end of your posts they wouldn't look much different.

[Westside Steve]

Embarrassing. Come on, man. You've got to do better than that. These are numbers. They're vastly different. The difference is counted in the hundreds of billions. And you suggest they're about the same, and there is no real difference.

 

Wow...

 

Steve, you have to learn more about this stuff. You really do. You're clearly out of your league, and out of things to say - Obama won't repeal the tax cuts, da evil rich, bellyaching, etc.

 

Every. Single. Post.

 

Or maybe I should stop giving you more credit than I give Cal. After all, if you said something about cookies at the end of your posts they wouldn't look much different.

 

 

Why should you expect differnt responses to the same old shit Heck?

 

 

Here's a question for you to duck.

 

Do you believe the world economy (if Obama had repealed the Bush tax cuts on day one) would be:

A A lot better.

B A little better

C The same

D Worse

E A lot worse.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're conflating two different things. I don't know if you're doing it because you're daft, or just being purposefully dim. But we've been over this more than a few times.

 

Obama took office in a time where it was absolutely crucial for the government to provide massive stimulus to the economy, and the Fed had to do so as well, otherwise we'd almost surely have been headed for another depression. There'd be no point to pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy while essentially canceling much of that stimulus out with hundred of billions in tax hikes. To say nothing of the political constraints involved.

 

Eventually, when the economy recovers to sounder footing, the Bush tax cuts have to be replaced by something that is more in line with government expenditures.

 

This also has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

Those Bush tax cuts were designed when the government was in surplus, not in deficit. That's what the man originally campaigned on - "It's your money. You should get it back." He was warned that they'd be fiscally irresponsible and blow a hole in the budget, but he went ahead and did it anyway. Then he cut them again, when Bush himself questioned the wisdom of doing it, and his Treasury Secretary thought it was so unwise he eventually lost his job for not being on board.

 

The budget picture is the way it is in large part because of those decisions. You can see it in every graph you could find on the subject. (You chose not to see it, because you love your own ideas too much to learn a new one.) And they need to be undone, and everyone with a brain and a basic understanding of the problems we face knows it.

 

Tax cuts don't always = good. And tax hikes don't always = good. Unless you're a dope who only looks at one side of the equation. All you're doing by continuing to try to make Obama's decision to let the tax cuts expire is broadcast that you can't keep two thoughts in your head at once - i.e. Most of the Bush tax cuts were unnecessary and a really bad idea and also you wouldn't want to repeal them when you're desperately pumping money into the economy, and they're going to expire on their own anyway.

 

You there yet? "If Bush's tax cuts were such a bad idea, why wouldn't Obama repeal them right away?" isn't a point worth making once, forget 25 times. Can we move on?

 

We need to cut spending, and raise more revenue. We owe far more than we take in. And you don't get more revenue by cutting top tax rates for rich people, except in conservative dream land. You need to get that one too.

[calfoxwc]

Heck

 

If you think that raising taxes on the rich will just melt our outrageous deficit go

 

blinkety-blinkety and then go away, you are the dweeb that is being staunchly

 

in dreamland.

 

You really need to get out more. Meet people in the real world. Maybe

 

even read some good conservative books. Break out of the liberal talking points cage.

[Westside Steve]

You're conflating two different things. I don't know if you're doing it because you're daft, or just being purposefully dim. But we've been over this more than a few times.

 

Obama took office in a time where it was absolutely crucial for the government to provide massive stimulus to the economy, and the Fed had to do so as well, otherwise we'd almost surely have been headed for another depression. There'd be no point to pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy while essentially canceling much of that stimulus out with hundred of billions in tax hikes. To say nothing of the political constraints involved.

 

Eventually, when the economy recovers to sounder footing, the Bush tax cuts have to be replaced by something that is more in line with government expenditures.

 

This also has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

Those Bush tax cuts were designed when the government was in surplus, not in deficit. That's what the man originally campaigned on - "It's your money. You should get it back." He was warned that they'd be fiscally irresponsible and blow a hole in the budget, but he went ahead and did it anyway. Then he cut them again, when Bush himself questioned the wisdom of doing it, and his Treasury Secretary thought it was so unwise he eventually lost his job for not being on board.

 

The budget picture is the way it is in large part because of those decisions. You can see it in every graph you could find on the subject. (You chose not to see it, because you love your own ideas too much to learn a new one.) And they need to be undone, and everyone with a brain and a basic understanding of the problems we face knows it.

 

Tax cuts don't always = good. And tax hikes don't always = good. Unless you're a dope who only looks at one side of the equation. All you're doing by continuing to try to make Obama's decision to let the tax cuts expire is broadcast that you can't keep two thoughts in your head at once - i.e. Most of the Bush tax cuts were unnecessary and a really bad idea and also you wouldn't want to repeal them when you're desperately pumping money into the economy, and they're going to expire on their own anyway.

 

You there yet? "If Bush's tax cuts were such a bad idea, why wouldn't Obama repeal them right away?" isn't a point worth making once, forget 25 times. Can we move on?

 

We need to cut spending, and raise more revenue. We owe far more than we take in. And you don't get more revenue by cutting top tax rates for rich people, except in conservative dream land. You need to get that one too.

 

 

Sorry Heck.

Amidst the repeated beratement for making the same point it seems I missed your answer.

We've read that spin enough times.

I made the question simple.

One thought too much for you?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

And I answered it, noting how the question isn't very on-topic or informed to begin with. You clearly can't follow this stuff and anything beyond the very elementary level that impresses guys like Cal. It's not my problem.

[calfoxwc]

No, Heck, you didn't.

 

You tippie toed around, and laughed

 

at your "seriousness" with a bunch of words

 

that just don't answer.

 

Admit it, you don't have any support for what you are trying to say.

 

You're just plain playing a game of "attack other's opinions I don't like but want to

 

learn how to diffuse their meaning and effectiveness on a national scale."

 

Maybe the rest of us on this board should charge you for tuition.