Clinton has what it takes to fix this mess
Judy Duvall, Fort Collins
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Is history repeating itself? When Bill Clinton took office he took on the economic problems of the Bush administration. The federal budget was balanced, 22 million jobs created making a record of the longest economic expansion in history.
At the end of another Bush administration we are at war, in debt and seeing the American dream slip away.
The economy is a disaster because of rising oil prices, a housing crisis with some 1.6 million foreclosures in 2007, banks reporting enormous losses, an increase in energy costs of $2,000 a year for the average family, a real health-care crisis, and a trade deficit resulting in our sending billions of dollars to countries like China, which, in turn, use our money to buy chunks of our economy.
Hillary Clinton has the experience, dedication, aggressiveness, strength and sincere commitment to change the direction of our broken government. We cannot afford to make another mistake in the leadership of our country.
Stand up for the America we know and love on Feb. 5 - caucus for Hillary Clinton!
February 5, 2008
5:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
And now Moveon.org has spoken.
February 5, 2008
6:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tom writes:
Well, Clyde, whether it's moveon, or just clear-eyed common sense, it's hard to argue with what Ms. Duvall says.
February 5, 2008
6:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
does anyone really want 4 more years of clinton? bill wants to slow the economy down to help stop global warming. now that will really add jobs some where. hillbillary wants to TAKE the profits from oil companies to support her social agenda is talking of garnishing your wages to force you to have health insurance.
oh and they wont have the dot com success that had nothing to do with clinton at all, your taxes are going up so you have less money to spend on your family, and try to bring back her FAILED socialized health care program from the 90's. she has no experience but has told you she does so you believe her because she is a clinton. 2003 the GAO reported that a recession was beginning in the 4th quarter of 99 but that went untold as it would hurt bill and algore.
this is all for naught as all the progressive liberal left sociopaths will have a hay day ripping this apart as they are the peace loving party of the US who require the government to supply everything they need. well I want free oil changes.
and here are a few more economic starters hillbillary has....freeze interest rates that private companies charge ......prevent any forclosures for 90 days.....run up interest rates for everyone as the lenders will be loosing millions of dollars and a lot of people will loose their jobs. but look on the bright side she also wants longer unemployment benefits, a real economic starter if there ever was one. and she just loves the illegals and is out for their vote
February 5, 2008
7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
Earl said: "bill wants to slow the economy down to help stop global warming."
Get your facts straight Earl.
In fact, Clinton did not say that "slow[ing] down our economy" was "what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do" to fight global warming. Rather, as Clinton's full quote makes clear, he said that "rich" countries could take that approach, but then he stated why he thought it wouldn't work and asserted that the "only way" to fight global warming is to prove that doing so "is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy."
February 5, 2008
8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
titancain writes:
Earl just parrots the rightwing radio zealots. Praise Christianity while lying constantly.
Sasquwatch,
What did our current president fix. He was a failure in every busienss venture he took on. He had to have daddy's freind bail him out from every disaster he created.
Obama or Hillary can clean up his current mess.
February 5, 2008
8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Yeah.... bring back the bubble that created the problems of today. Bring back the sleazy soap opera known as the Clintons.
Even Democrats have enough IQ to realize that the Clintons are a joke.... and that is causing them to rally behind some empty suit whose only qualifications is that his name isn't Clinton.
No wonder the majority of Americans in a poll last week said they did not want a return of the Clinton's to the White House.
February 5, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Letterwriter forgot to mention Hurricane Katrina
February 5, 2008
8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Your right Earl we don't want 4 years of Clinton we want 8.
Her best line in the last debate: "It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it will take another Clinton to clean up after this Bush."
Actually she's wrong about the first Bush. Truth be told it was Reagan that Bill had to clean up after.
The lesson: A "borrow and spend" Republican is far and away worse than a "tax and spend" Democrat.
February 5, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
sschow writes:
It saddens me that many of your responding with praise to this letter will be allowed to cast your vote based on misguided feelings about how much influence the executive branch has over the economy. There was no "mess" to clean up after Bush's first term. The jumpstart to the economy in the early 90's was brought on by a loose monetary policy position taken by the Federal Reserve after the financial crises from a few years prior. Monetary policy takes a while to hit the economy, while fiscal policy (what the Congress and Executive Brach do) has an immediate, albeit minor, effect. "Easy money" led to the prosperity during Clinton's presidency. Unfortunately, the majority of American's don't know the first thing about economics, though to hear their opinions you would think they were challening Bernanke for his job...
February 5, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
Thanks Spencer. I was thinking the writers list of things to blame on Bush was a might short.
February 5, 2008
9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
9/11. Hillary is Rudy too. 400+ NYC police officers and fire fighters died on this fateful day because they weren't properly trained by Rudy and Hillary
WHAT A IDIOT!!!!! tHESE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WENT INTO A BUILDING TO RESCUE PEOPLE AND THE THE BUILDINGS CAME DOWN. HOW DO YOU TRAIN FOR THAT. YOU JUST SHOWED HOW STUPID REPUBLICANS ARE.
February 5, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
sschow, your probably right. Unless, of course a Republican had been sitting at the helm when the wheel came around. Then it would have been how great a president he/she was and none of what you typed would have mattered. Right? Still sad!
February 5, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
When Bill Clinton took over there was a Democrat White House, Senate and House. After eight years of the Golden Age, he left a Republican White House, Senate and House.
How soon the memories fade. But the Clinton's understand their base and they know how to make that work for themselves. It's everybody else that pays the price.
February 5, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
sschow - "Unfortunately, the majority of American's don't know the first thing about economics, though to hear their opinions you would think they were challening Bernanke for his job..."
You're right that most Americans don't know much about economics and tend to blame the president for every economic woe (such as higher gas prices). However, I do expect the president to have a clue which the current one absolutely does not. He has burned through more economic advisors than any other president I'm aware of because he simply refused to listen to their advice (until he found one to tell him what he wanted to hear).
However, I do have a clue about economics and am aware of how the president can effect the economy. The US now has a much weaker dollar vs. other currencies (and especially weak against the euro) than at any point during Clinton's presidency. Why? Because we have been deficit spending every year, with larger deficits as time goes on. Because we have a huge trade deficit that has also been growing every year. Who sets the spending policy? Who sets the trade embargoes or other trading policies? The president of course. Another president probably would not have put the nation in such a large economic hole as this one and I very strongly doubt that another president could possibly balance the budget within just 4 years given how we're now stuck in Iraq and spending an unimaginable about of money there every year (I mean that quite literaly, it is almost impossible to conceive how much money we are burning there every month).
As many others have pointed out the US has never gone to war without raising taxes. There's a reason for this. But regardless of natural disaster, terrorist strikes, a war lasting longer than WWII this president will never, ever raise taxes or ask the current generation to make the smallest sacrifice. Let the next generation/president deal with it.
February 5, 2008
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
larrydmac,
lcdrjjxant is not someone to quote regarding Republican positions. He's not a Republican at all and rants against them constantly. I'm not sure that he's a Democrat either, but the one thing that is certain is that the man is a lunatic. He's not to be taken seriously.
February 5, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
sschow writes:
That's a very good point joggle. I am definately on your side as far as decreasing the federal budget to reign in our trade defecit. However, I trust a Republican (at least a Romney or McCain) more to lower spending than I trust a Democrat to not raise taxes to meet our current level of spending.
In the grand scheme of things, people should focus less on the presidential beauty contest and more on their congressional elections. Too many of our senators and representatives do nothing but "bring home the bacon" for their constituents, which is not doing anything to ameliorate the situation.
February 5, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
The dollar is devalued because the Fed has been decreasing interest rates in an attempt to stimulate the economy. Adjusting the monetary policy is all well and good but at some point you have to also address fiscal policy.
The best way to stimulate the economy is to lower marginal tax rates and the taxes on capital formation. Let more Americans keep more of what they earn and we will become more productive.
That's what Bush did and it worked. That's why revenues have been flowing into the treasury at record levels. Unfortunatley, we have been spending it faster then it comes in and that is the definition of debt.
Solution? Lower tax rates and cut spending. Vote for whoever promises to do that. Except for the Presidency. In that case we are electing a Commander in Chief and that is the most important role in that job.
February 5, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
There's still $18 billion in pork flowing thru congress in the form of earmarks that are never even voted on.
Think about how many programs could be funded with that wasted money or returned to the taxpayers if we sinply had a more transparent process for holding these fat cats responsible.
February 5, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Hillary swiped all the furniture?
They trashed the place?
Their going to let Bin Laden sleep in the Lincoln bedroom?
Incompetence left from the '90's?
Anymore news from the National Enquire we need to know NCB?
Maybe Bill will fornicate in every room in the White House, I don't know, but at least it will be with women and not that men on men thing the Republican males seem to prefer.
February 5, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
"but at least it will be with women and not that men on men thing that the Republican males seem to prefer".
I see, so it's acceptable as long as it's not gay. How very homophobic (okay, that was a cheap shot....it was hard to resist though).
February 5, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
lol
February 5, 2008
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Even in non-war years the US spends more on its military by far than any other country in the world, and even as percentage of GDP more than almost every other country (the only exceptions are countries like North Korea that would sooner starve its citizens than cut military spending).
We can't lower taxes significantly so long as we are carrying out a significant war. If you try to do so, you will cut programs that thousands are currently relying on or increase the federal deficit even more and further decrease the US dollar's value. Simply cutting pork-barrel spending wouldn't be nearly enough to offset the cost of the war (also keep in mind that congressmen have little incentive to cut pork-barrel spending since the people they represent would be very unhappy if they didn't make an effort to pull federal money back to their area). Even Ron Paul has done a 'good' job of getting federal money back to his district in the form of ear marks.
My advice would be to increase revenues in some way (perhaps by taxing oil companies at a higher rate--you know the ones making $41 BILLION in pure profit per year) and regulating them in such a way that only their profit is affected (so that the tax isn't passed on to the consumer). There are some ridiculously wealthy individuals and corporations that are not coming close to spending their fair share for the stability they rely on that is provided by the US military and I don't see how it's unreasonable to at the very least cut back on the tax incentives given to them during the Bush presidency.
Even if taxes were raised for other Americans I wouldn't be opposed so long as it was specifically for funding the war in Iraq. So if the president asks for another $60 billion for the war effort it is tied to a specific tax to pay for it. Then we'll see how many Republicans and others are still for extending the war effort indefinitely. I'm just asking for the war effort to be tied more directly to people's pocket books so that they better understand its true cost. Taxes were raised significantly during WWII and other wars so this isn't unprecedented. And Ron Paul has a good point, why the heck can't the US come right out and make a declaration of war any more? Here we are spending money we don't have on a war without even a formal declaration of war which just makes me sick.
February 5, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
joggle - If we tax oil companies at a higher rate, or any companies for that matter, what do you think will happen to the costs of whatever goods or serices those companies provide?
It will inevitabley come out of our pockets.
February 5, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Joggle,
"...and regulating them in such a way that only their profit is affected (so that the tax isn't passed on to the consumer)"
The only possible way to avoid a company passing its expenses on to the consumer is through price controls. Remember last time the government tried that?
February 5, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
The US used price controls extensively during WWII. Worked pretty well back then. Also, I'm not talking about passing on costs. A single oil company made $41 billion in pure profit in a single year and nearly $40 billion the year before, I'm not talking about revenue.
February 5, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Joggle,
Taxes are a cost that is always passed on to the consumer. If we were to impose government price controls again, what makes you think we wouldn't have a repeat of the last time we tried that?
February 5, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Since we are in a time when you vote for the best of two evils I'll will be voting for Hillary so I can watch Bill walk back into the White House with his middle finger in the air smoking a cigar saying "I'M BAAACK!!!!! This is going to drive all these rightwing idiots nuts. And I'm going to sit back and laugh my a-- off. And if it happens you can thank your boy "W".
February 5, 2008
12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sean writes:
Bush senior does not get the credit he deserves and gets a lot of unfair blame. Bush senior had the very difficult task of cleaning up the mess Reagan left him. Massive national debt, trade imbalances, a recession and high unemployment. Bush senior did do a lot to correct the mess Reagan created but the solutions were unpopular and it cost him his reelection.
That is what the next President will have to face too, he or she will have to make some very unpopular decisions to correct some very difficult problems that Bush Jr. has created.
February 5, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
STOPUSAGiveaway writes:
BILIARY combined has destroyed most manufacturing USA jobs--
Do we have a nation of alzheimers: who do you think donated COMMUNIST CHINA the most favored trade status: you know those people poisoning you and me--your childrens toys, pet food.
BUSH & CLINTON are in this together.
BUSH has the MEXICAN TRUCKS rolling right in---without being INSPECTED?
What do you think they are delivering?
The ignorance of AMERICANS is ASTOUNDING thus upon the collapse of this nation: the ignorant will be the first to cry.
COMMUNIST CHINESE run the Panama Canal donated and uligized by Carter: and then we have the same at Long Beach:
BUT
WHY IS IT THAT DUMB IGNORANT AMERICANS don't get it that both Bush Sr, Clinton then Jr helped the COMMUNIST CHINESE to our National Defense system?
or is that okay with you....
I guess it is because most people cheer their TRAITORS..
there is more but why waste the time upon ignorance...
Did you bother to R E A D the WTO NAFTA, etc?
WELL E X C U S E ME: but I had a son in Congress who said here I thought you would want this " a 783 page of the WTO IMPLEMENTATON--signed ONE YEAR PRIOR to CONGRESSIONAL VOTE>
So what else did our illustrious T R A I T O R S do behind closed doors....
The AMNESTY MAN-Osama-Obamam McCain or WOMAN Clinton is about to crown you and itwon't be with jewels.....
Do Unto Others As You Would Have them Do Unto Y O U
One Nation Under GOD
February 5, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
I think STOPUSAGiveaway is lcdrjjxant's evil twin
February 5, 2008
2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
I agree with everything you said Sean (and I'm a Democrat). However, I think it was stupid of Bush Sr to make a campaign promise to not raise taxes since you can't be an oracle and predict the future. I think it was even more stupid (much, much more stupid) to make the same promise years later and stick to it when trying to execute a war that presses our volunteer forces and treasury to the limit (not to mention experiencing the most expensive natural distaster in US history).
"what makes you think we wouldn't have a repeat of the last time we tried that?"
Because with appropriate leadership it can work. I'm not saying it will (although at times in the past it has worked), but it can at least be tried. If it doesn't work, try something else.
February 5, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
StandUp writes:
It was also during this time that terrorists were in our country planning the worst attack in history - they had the intel on these men. Suppose Clinton had other things on his mind, such as the new crop of interns.
No matter who we pick, we still lose.
February 5, 2008
4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Here's an interesting article that talks about the potential of green industry to revitalize our economy, specifically in terms of bringing back manufacturing jobs: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/a...
Also interesting is a point the article makes about the possibility that parts could still end up manufactured overseas, which of course would defeat the whole purpose. So whoever ends up in the White House, I hope they will prevent that from happening.
February 5, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
sschow writes:
joggle...You almost had me. Right up until you mentioned oil company profits. Please learn the difference between a profit and a profit margin. The oil company earns less (as a %) off of each gallon of gas you buy than the bottled water company makes off of your beverage purchase inside.
Think of it this way: Joe has a business selling widgets. It costs him $100 to make a widget and he sells them for $110, so his profit margin is 10%. In year 1, Joe sells 10 widgets for a total of $1100, so his profit is $100. In year 2, Joe sells 100 widgets for a total of $11,000, for a profit of $1000.
OMG, Joe's profit has skyrocketed! He must be taxed!
This is exactly what happens to the oil companies. They make about 10% on each gallon of gas, and one year they happen to sell a lot of it, so people start freaking out and screaming bloody murder. Please...lay off the oil companies. Try going after the people who markup their prices by 100% or more (Gucci, Prada, etc.)
February 5, 2008
6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
joggle said,
" A single oil company made $41 billion in pure profit in a single year and nearly $40 billion the year before, I'm not talking about revenue."
Do you realize that the Govt taxes gas at a rate of 40 cents a gallon, where the evil oil companies profit between 8-12 cents a gallon AFTER all their expenses?
And you blame big oil for excessive profits and call for more tax?
How about placing the blame where it belongs, on big Govt.
February 5, 2008
7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
"The best way to stimulate the economy is to lower marginal tax rates and the taxes on capital formation. Let more Americans keep more of what they earn and we will become more productive."
We're already the most productive workforce in the world. People need more vacation time and family time, not to be more productive
"That's what Bush did and it worked. That's why revenues have been flowing into the treasury at record levels."
I'd love to see some proof for your claims, such as a supporting argument by a respected economist, but I know it won't be forthcoming.
Yankee's budget formulation:
Less revenue + more wars = prosperity.
Has there ever been someone with more self-assuredness and less reason for it?
Inspector Clouseau perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspecto...
February 5, 2008
7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
That was to Yankee, of course.
February 5, 2008
7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
CB - Are you saying tax "revenues" aren't at record levels despite tax "rates" being lower?
Interesting.
February 5, 2008
8:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Charles B
You can find a respected economist somewhere who will tell you just about anything. Then you can find anohter respected ecnonmist who will tell you the opposite. I prefer the reality.
According to figures from the Congressional Budget Office:
In 2003, when President Bush lowered the rates on income, dividends and capital gains, the Federal tax receipts were $1,783 billion. In 2004 the Federal tax receipts grew to $2,568 billion. Tax receipts have soared by 46% in the four years following the Bush rate reductions and that is the largest increase in US history.
You said you'd love to see the proof. The simple man makes simple requests.
February 5, 2008
8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Charels B
That's about as productive as you get. Take the day off tomorrow.
February 5, 2008
8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Yankee:
Where is your cause and effect argument? The fact that revenues are up *does not mean* that the tax cuts were the cause.
Most economists will tell you that if taxes hadn't been cut revenues would have been *even higher*.
You have provided no proof.
KW:
I'm saying revenues aren't at record rates *because* tax rates are lower.
The application of Occam's razor and simple math will tell you that. Maybe Yankee can help...well, nevermind.
February 5, 2008
9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Charels B
I see, there was no cause and effect - it was a coincidence. Why do "most economists" think revenues rose to record levels despite the rate cuts?
Weren't you the guy asking me for proof just a while back?
February 6, 2008
12:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
The oil companies have an oligopoly in cooperation with the almost complete monopoly of the OPEC states. Of course I know the difference between profit margin, gross revenue, tax rates, etc., probably much more than most of you. I keep track of many news sources and heavily research any topic I'm interested in. Did you see the interview with the formal chief executive of the Exxon a couple of years ago on the Charlie Rose show? I did. Did you keep close track of the price of crude and its futures for the past 10 years and tracking the causes of its changes? I have. Did you take a college level course in macro and micro economics? I have. For crying out loud, stop with the stupid assumptions of what some random guy knows or doesn't.
Just a few years ago a tax rebate was given to oil companies to pay for expansion of oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a rebate that even Bush was hesitant to support. While oil companies have a small profit margin, it is not as small as many other industries and is much, much more reliable in terms of paying for expenses since it is a percentage of the price payed at the pump which more closely reflects the cost of production than any other product sold directly to consumers that I'm aware of. It's used as an example of pure competition in many economic text books. They will, and almost* always will, make a profit, the only question is how much. When the price of oil doubles their profit at least doubles since their expenses are fixed. It's insane to give them tax rebates (or to keep them in place) and to not regulate such an important oligopoly is a terrible idea. Of course they are regulated, but not enough. Also, they are one of the prime beneficiaries of stability in the Middle East and it's high time that they paid for the security provided by the US Navy and other military forces.
The taxes you speak of are paid by the consumer, not the oil company. These taxes are used to pay for road maintenance and is one of the more fair taxes in the books (being a direct tax after all). The more you use the road, the more you pay. Pretty simple concept.
When unrest increases in OPEC nations the price of oil goes up and the oil companies profit more. The US sends in forces to reduce the tension and at great cost to Americans the tension usually reduces and oil prices drop so their profit goes down. Either way they profit and would only be hurt if production ceases, is significantly reduced or if their infrastructure is damaged. Otherwise they always maintain a healthy profit.
The fact stands. The most profitable companies, by far, are the oil companies. They can most afford to be taxed and can most easily be regulated since there's only a handful to keep track of.
*The only time they wouldn't profit is if there were huge labor issues, a tremendous natural disaster or some other man-made disaster. And given how crucial oil is to all of the industrialized countries they would be bailed out regardless.
February 6, 2008
12:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
One other thing I'd like to point out is that the largest single consumer of oil in the US right now is the military. So it isn't like none of the money oil companies pay in additional taxes wouldn't find its way back to them. They also have much higher profit margins on oil sold to the military.
So at the time when the price of oil is at its highest (usually, but not always, a time of unrest requiring US military intervention) they get paid the highest prices by the military in great quantities. Now they would have to pay more of this money back to the US government if a sensible tax policy was put in place. Seems fair to me.
February 6, 2008
2:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
She needs to clean (not fix ) clean out this mess.
February 6, 2008
8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
You're in quite a state of denial there Charles B. BDS is truly an amazing disease.
February 6, 2008
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Yankee:
The number that matters is real *per capita* revenue growth, and that has stayed the same since 2001 despite the increase in revenue.
In the 1990's, five years after the income-tax rate *increase* on the well to do, per capita revenue growth was at about 11%.
Economic growth stayed basically the same through the last three decades of wildly divergent tax policies, but the per-capita revenue growth clearly favors the 1990's tax policies.
Recently Edward Lazear, chairman of Bush's council of economic advisers said "I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves."
Bottom line: Tax cuts that increase debt do more harm than good. I have no problem cutting taxes when there are surplus revenues, but clearly, by any objective measure, Bush's tax cuts *have not* increased per-capita revenue, which is the only sensible measure of their effectiveness. Total revenue numbers are not indicative of the real story.
But I know you like to simplify complex subjects so you can pretend to know what you're talking about.
February 6, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
KW:
I'm still waiting for you to show a cause-effect relationship between the increased revenues and the tax cuts.
February 6, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
You go ahead and wait for your "proof" then. The rest of us will accept the obvious and continue moving forward.
February 6, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Charles B
It is obvious that tax cuts that increase the debt do more harm than good. The tax rebates currently proposed will do just that.
It is not correct that reducing marginal rates and taxes on capital formation do not stimulate the economy. It is self-evident that allowing the American people to keep more of what they earn and removing barriers to investment stimulated the economy under JFK, Reagan and now Bush and increased revenue.
It is not true, in fact it is silly, that the per capita growth is what matters. What matters is how much revenue goes to the treasury and how much the government spends. Or is that too simple for a GMT?
I know you like to obfuscate the obvious to deny the truth. That's why reality holds no lessons for you.
February 6, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
kw,
I'm going with you. This does get tedious.
February 6, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Yankee and KW, why can't either of you explain how tax cuts raise tax revenues??? Both of you tout your economic expertise so much, surely you can do more than just assert this point and insult Charles B for simply asking you to support your position.
February 6, 2008
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
mytwosense:
"...surely you can do more than just assert this point and insult Charles B for simply asking you to support your position."
I wouldn't be so sure.
February 6, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Yankee:
"It is not correct that reducing marginal rates and taxes on capital formation do not stimulate the economy."
Then why has economic growth in real terms stayed more or less the same over the last three decades despite divergent tax policies?
"It is self-evident that allowing the American people to keep more of what they earn and removing barriers to investment stimulated the economy under JFK, Reagan and now Bush and increased revenue."
Then why did the economy grow at the same rate under Clinton's policies?
"It is not true, in fact it is silly, that the per capita growth is what matters. What matters is how much revenue goes to the treasury and how much the government spends."
Why is it silly? Per-capita revenue is the *only* way to measure *actual* tax revenue growth. I'd love to hear you support your delusion that total revenues are a more accurate measure than per-capita revenues. Should we also ignore inflation when comparing historical economic data?
Apples should be compared to apples.
Yankee agreed with KW that they can't win this argument and announced their exit from the conversation:
"I'm going with you. This does get tedious."
Look everybody! Yankee is taking his ball and going home with KW where his delusions will meet with little resistance.
February 6, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
KW:
"You go ahead and wait for your "proof" then. The rest of us will accept the obvious and continue moving forward."
If it's so "obvious" shouldn't it be easy to make a reasoned argument that supports your contention?
February 6, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
I didn't read any of the postings, just the original letter.
I have a few questions:
1. What health care crisis? By no stretch of the imagination is the state of our health care in a crisis? Maybe the system we have could use a face lift, but a crisis? That is a stretch, to say the least.
2. The economy? Right now, unemployment is at 5% (and typically rises in the winter). Yes, the housing market has corrected, but the stock market reached new heights. Oil prices and heating prices are WAY up, thanks to a do nothing Congress these last 9 years.
3. Experience. What experience does Sen. Clinton possess? She has not introduced ONE PIECE of legislation. NOT ONE! (for proof, search the Thomas Library of Congress under Clinton, H for legislation). She has been a sitting Senator that has wasted the hard earned money of the New York tax payers by doing NOTHING!
What we would get with a President Hilary Clinton, is not a return to her husbands prosperity. We would see a rise in taxes, which would weaken the economy; bitter partisan bickering that would make the Bush years look tame; no change in health care (because her own radicals in her party would push for more than she would be willing, and the "blue" Democrats would refuse to go along with); a destabilization in the middle east (you think that crying will work with people who's faith dictates they have no respect for women in the first place?); and an inability to even identify what a "change in Washington means," considering that she has lived her whole life to be "Washington."
Please, explain to me how Sen. Clinton is the best person for the job? Please use specifics, not just rhetoric. I want to know how change will come, and how it will be paid for!
February 6, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
joggle,
your facts are a little off (obviously I just finished reading the comments). The largest consumer of Federal receipts is not the military (although it absolutely should be, if you believe in the vision of our Founders). It is entitlements. Medicare and Medicaid and social security make up 34.2% of the entire federal budget. The President has asked for, and most likely will receive more than he has asked for $1.2 TRILLION for entitlements. The ENTIRE defense budget, including payroll for military personnel and base operations, is $895 Billion.
In my humble opinion, we need to get the Government out of the business of being a business. It is that simple for me. Imagine the tax receipts if a private enterprise managed for profit a $1.2 TRILLION industry? Of course regulations should be made, but imagine if that money, instead of going to the government in way of taxes, was actually spent in the private sector and managed by the private sector.
February 6, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
mts,
Welcome new mommy. Hope the baby is doing well.
Here is how tax cuts raise receipts.
When individual income taxes are cut, the "spending" public purchases. Since corporate tax rates are higher than any individual tax rates, corporations typically make up the difference, because they see greater profit margins, and then pay a greater tax. As consumers spend on items, on travel and such, those areas are also taxed, not at greater levels of taxation, but in greater frequency (think of travel. The more you travel, the more you pay in gasoline taxes, hotel taxes, amusement taxes and so forth). If you don't have the means to do those things, then that money never gets spent in the economy, and as such does not raise revenue.
We all think that taxes are based on the individual income tax. Well, the reality of it is, that Federal spending on non-entitlements is actually through receipts of the Corporate Income tax. Obviously, entitlements are supposedly "self-sustaining" (i.e. FICO pays for Medicare/Medicaid and SSA), while individual income tax receipts, literally go to pay down the interest on the national debt (not on the deficit, but the interest rates on the loans that China owns).
All of this information is readily available at the Congressional Budget Office and it's annual report of tax receipts and liability.
I hope that helps.
February 6, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Dan2: "In my humble opinion, we need to get the Government out of the business of being a business."
I agree - but because the government isn't supposed to be a business. It's to carry out legislation that looks out for the general welfare of all.
February 6, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Dan2, thanks for your post about the tax receipts. Let me chew on that a bit, it raises some questions I want to research...
Baby's doing well, hope your's is too!
February 6, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Dan2: Where did I say the US spent more on the military than anything else? I stated that we spend more on the military than any other nation. We also spend more on the military as a percentage of GDP than almost any other country. The only other comment I made regarding the military with a superlative was that they are the single largest consumer of oil in the US.
I'm not sure where you are getting your military budget number from. That actually seems a bit high to me. From what I can find on the net the budget for military-related expenses for 2007 was $626 billion, although it was as high as $910.6 billion in 2003 (accounting for roughly 47% of the world's military spending that year according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). The 2003 budget was more than triple the military budget of 2001 and had a lower tax rate to pay for it.
The US spends an enormous amount of money on the military compared to any other country as I said before. I distinctly remember Republicans whining about the US being the "world's police" back during the Clinton presidency and disliked his limmited us of force in several UN actions. Now they seem to accept that role and don't care what the costs are or what long-term commitments are being created.
February 6, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Dan2: (regarding raising revenue with tax cuts) The problem is it doesn't work. This is basic Reaganomics and was tried in the 80s. It seemed to work for a while but was really an illusion as the growing deficit and recession grew. The fallout of that policy wasn't fully repaired until the Clinton presidency (during which the US had the longest continuous economic growth of its history despite higher taxes for investors and other wealthy people). Now we are on the brink of recession again with a tremendous deficit with little hope of digging or way out for probably 8 years. Our dollar is unbelievably weak (weaker than at any point since I've been alive, since '79). The only reason we haven't experienced a worst decline in the value of the dollar is because various external forces are proping it up so that they don't get too adversly effected (such as continuing to traid oil in dollars, continued investment in US Treasury bonds by the Chinese, etc.). It would be easy for a country like China to significantly reduce the value of the dollar by simply selling all of their treasury bonds but that would cause them a great deal of pain as well. They would also suffer lower exports to the US with a weak dollar. But make no mistake, the dollar deserves to be as low as it is if not lower due to our horrible fiscal policy and great spending and trading deficits. This can not be continued indefinitely without severe consequences--probably leading to a world-wide recession much like the one in the 30s (although hopefuly not that bad).
As for the reasons it doesn't work, many economic texts about this subject have been written and don't need to be repeated here (just try searching for 'trickle down economics' or Reaganomics). Suffice it to say that many economic experts agree with me and have a wealth of data to support their position. (and when I say 'many', while not as great a proportion as the number of scientists that believe in global warming, it's close)
February 6, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fresh writes:
Hillary is going to RUIN our country if she gets into office.
she is going to give all our earned benefits to illegals and spend our money on needless crap!!!
count on it
February 6, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
joggle,
It didn't work because when receipts went higher, so did spending, and then they looked at projections, instead of actuals. The idea that supply side economics doesn't work, is not one that is very well respected, especially if we take it on a side by side comparison of Keynesian economics, which is what Sen. Clinton, in a more round about way, is proposing.
Either way, if we are speaking specifically about the economy and economics, then hands down the best candidate of ALL is Mitt Romney. I don't know if you know anything about the consulting business, but Bain is about as good as it gets (although people from McKinsey and BCG would argue on that point), and the fact that he started Bain Capital. And he is a strong supporter of supply side economics.
But as far as the Reagan tax cuts, the problem wasn't on the economy and it's response, but the S&L bail out (similar to the credit "crunch" now), and the lack of control in spending, thereby again devaluing our dollar. But when you look at job creation and economic long term stimulus, it wasn't until 1996 that the economy EXPLODED with Clinton, AFTER the "republican revolution" and a decrease in spending and a cut in the tax rate. Historically speaking of course.
February 6, 2008
2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
joggle - It wasn't only the "investors and other wealthy people" who were affected by the continually rising tax rates under Clinton. My taxes increased significantly as well.
CB - Yesterday there was a puddle of water in my driveway but when I checked today it was gone. I didn't see the water evaporate and nobody can "prove" to me that's where the water went. But reasonable minds don't waste time arguing over the obvious yet you're demanding proof of this natural and logical cycle.
A better question would be what evidence do you have that something other than the tax rate decrease fostered greater revenues?
And don't forget, for every economist you can get to back your hypothesis there's another who will discredit it. You'll need something much stronger in your corner before I'll waste anymore time arguing the obvious.
February 6, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Dan2:
(Yoda voice)
A theory does not a reality make.
February 6, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
CB,
Very true (and I like the Yoda voice, could hear it in my head).
To get away from the tax issues, and back to the ability of Sen. Clinton to enact change as President, this thought keeps coming back to me (and is appropriate for all of our sitting Senators in the race for the White House).
You (speaking directly to the candidate), are one of 100. For Sens. Obama and Clinton, you are also in the majority party. You have the ability, and the Constitutional AUTHORITY to enact change NOW, by working both within your caucus and across party lines to, for lack of a better word, "fix" things that are broken. What the hell have you been doing during your time in office to not address, introduce legislation, or at least bring awareness to these issues, both historically, as part of your elected duty, and currently, as you are STILL sitting Senators? If you are unable to work across the aisles and within your own parties now to enact change, how and why should we, the general populace, and your employers, expect you to do it as President? As they say, the proof is in the pudding, and right now, we are stuck, quite simply, with nothing but mud.
I want change! I am desperate for change. For the extremists in BOTH parties to be left out in the cold, and distinct shift towards the median, and the moderate. Those that don't have such a hard, partisan line. Someone that will represent the public, not the partisans. Someone that will speak to the greater population, not the popular general interests. I see NONE of that right now. I had hoped beyond hope that Sen. Obama had that ability, and I understand the political process during the Primary to energize "the base." But when it comes right down to it, do we really only want to limit our choices that are selected, by and large, by the fringe of partisanship?
Sorry for the rant, but I am honestly concerned about the duplicity of the candidates, and the ignorance of the public that is charged with electing them. People, we can not take verbatim what we are being promised. If that were the case, we would have already solved the issues that I have heard about since I can remember, which are Health Care, Social Security, and the Environment. President GHW Bush promised "no new taxes." President Clinton promised to "revolutionize health care as we know it." Vice President Gore told us "there is nothing more important than protecting our environment from Global Warming (in 1993)." President GW Bush promised us that "we will not be involved in nation building." NONE of those promises were kept. Why should I believe a word out of a candidates mouth, when the whole purpose of their existence is to be in POWER, and once there, to STAY IN POWER (hence the huge partisanship that has over-run politics)?
February 6, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
"CB - Yesterday there was a puddle of water in my driveway but when I checked today it was gone. I didn't see the water evaporate and nobody can "prove" to me that's where the water went. But reasonable minds don't waste time arguing over the obvious yet you're demanding proof of this natural and logical cycle."
KW, elementary level mathematics will show you what is logical and what is obvious. When you increase tax rates revenues *increase* and when you decrease tax rates revenues *decrease*. That's the assumption you must start with and disprove if you want to show that voodoo Reaganomics work(ed). Otherwise it's like arguing that a savings account with a lower interest rate will *increase* your returns.
You're fixating on total revenues because you think it bolsters your partisan case, but without context the number is meaningless.
"A better question would be what evidence do you have that something other than the tax rate decrease fostered greater revenues?"
Why would it be a better question? Simple math puts the lie to your theory.
In any case I *did* provide evidence. It's the simple measure of per capita revenue growth (or lack thereof) that I outlined in my post above.
"You'll need something much stronger in your corner before I'll waste anymore time arguing the obvious."
(voice of narrator)
And so it was that KW went "forward", blissfully believing that the sky was green.
February 6, 2008
3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
mts,
baby is GREAT! What a wonderful feeling and an inspiring thing to be a parent. I think we have it pretty easy too. He is a VERY good baby.
February 6, 2008
3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
I don't expect to convince you that tax cuts usually don't lead to an increase in revenue (if you're anything like me it would require about a book worth of information to stand a chance of changing your stance). However, I would like to give you a link to a short article by an original supply-sider from the 70s and 80s and his criticism of modern 'supply-side' economics: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opi...
(written by a Reagan official and a believer in supply-side economics -- as opposed to Keynesian economics)
February 6, 2008
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
Ahh, CB, you are missing a point, but I will run with your analogy on savings accounts.
Lets just assume the basic premise for a moment, that interest rates are now 3.5% (obviously this is the reverse of taxes and rates but serves a purpose).
To increase savings, we raise the rate to 4.2%, thereby providing a greater ROI (return on investment), but also makes the assumption that real money stays constant. For example, if you have $1000 to start, and under the rate of 3.5% you deposit $450/ annually, your receipts (if you will) is $1500.75.
Now, if because there is less to save (because of changes outside of your control, and would be comparable to "spend" in a tax structure), you are only able to deposit $390/ annually, your receipts are $1448.38. While your ROI is higher as a percentage, your receipts DECLINED, because real monies (income in taxes) also declined.
Another way to look at it is, where is the incentive to report higher income if the tax rate is significantly higher at a lower income level? Would it not make sense, for those that are able to afford it, to "hide" real income so as to report at a lower rate, thereby negating an inflation of the tax receipts?
This is, in principle, Keynesian economics, and that is how it has failed (even John Maynard Keynes disavowed this theory of economics in 1944). Yet that is the argument that you are attempting. One that even the theorist said was a failure over a half a century ago. (you can look it up on Google if you would like. Just search Lord John Maynard Keynes).
February 6, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
joggle,
GREAT article! But that discussed the differences in which Sen Clinton is proposing to "save us from recession" a return to Keynesian economics, which we ALL know (we do, we all know this), is not an answer.
What I did find fascinating, was the comparison not to current conditions necessarily, but instead comparison from the terminology of supply side to mainstream economics. It was more an article to put to rest the use of the word "supply side" and instead call it what it is, which is mainstream economics, and it's usefulness in practice as well as theory. Or did you get a different read from that?
February 6, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Dan2: As I'm sure you're aware a majority in the senate is not sufficient to enable immediate change. Due to senate rules there must be 60 votes to kill a filibuster (never-ending debate). The Democrats don't have 60 votes and with a lame-duck, extremely unpopular president the Republican senators have very little reason to help the Democrats get anything done since this would most likely be spun as a victory for Democrats. Even if a bill passes there is no incentive for Bush to sign it and he has historically shown very little desire to compromise. Another problem is that it has become so polarized under our current president that the objectives of each side are typically so radically opposed that it's difficult to compromise and still maintain face with the party faithful.
The Democrats are not willing to use the 'nuclear option' and force the removal of the rule that allows for filibusters (as the Republicans had threatened to do when they were the majority). There are many other senate rules that can be invoked to stall legislation indefinitely so there really does need to be a super majority in the senate to get anything done.
As for Clinton's promise to change health care, you have to admit that he tried very hard and lost a lot of political capital in the process. In both of their books the give reasons for their failure and deliniate many mistakes they made in the process (and presumably would not repeat). That's one primary reason why Hillary Clinton is not trying to run on a 2 for 1 platform as Bill Clinton did previously. Of course she still uses her husband to make stump speeches (and now to NOT talk to reporters) since he can still attract people that would otherwise be difficult for her to pull on her own.
"Someone that will speak to the greater population, not the popular general interests. I see NONE of that right now."
The main reason I see for this is because there are simply too many partisans in the country right now. I think Obama stands the best chance of reducing this partisanship but only time will tell. While he certainly delivers good speeches, they are still only words until action is taken. On this one point I certainly agree with Bill Clinton, a vote for Obama is a roll of the dice. I'm willing to take that chance for hope's sake but am realistic enough to acknowledge that he surely won't be able to deliver on all of his promises (at least not to the satisfaction of his supporters).
February 6, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
Sure, I understand procedural rules in Congress. However, there was not ONE BILL introduced by either Sen. Clinton or Obama, that addresses, health care, environmental change, or even co-sponsorship. NOTHING!
As far as using their books for reasons, they are VERY good politicians. Because of Sen. Clinton's aspirations for the White House, and President Clinton's desire to be back there, of COURSE they will point the finger and deflect blame for not being able to do what they promised. They are, if nothing else, EXCELLENT politicos.
But again, should we expect to see that kind of partisanship and EXPECT to have a change? And if so, what in the WORLD do we base that on? As long as the us vs. them mentality dominates our two party politics, we will NEVER see change. The extremists will never allow it, not now, not ever.
February 6, 2008
3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Dan2,
Just making sure that you believe in the original, more plausible theory of supply-side economics rather than what many less informed conservatives seem to believe now. As he says early in the article:
"Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for cutting taxes under any and all circumstances."
While I don't believe either supply-side or Keynesian economics are completely accurate and can both be used to support terrible fiscal policy, I would hope that at least the economic theory you support could at least possibly work (whereas cutting all taxes under all circumstances wouldn't make sense). From your previous comments I wasn't sure which you believed and in either case thought you would like the article.
February 6, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
CB - There are literally thousands of variables that come into play that you don't consider with your idea that raised rates will equal raised receipts and visa versa.
Let me use one rather simple example. Do you know how many times the same dollar is taxed? By the time it gets to my paycheck it's already seen the tax collecter at least 9 or 10 times. before i'm finished with it there will be another 6 or 7 taxes it goes thru.
Now if the gov lets the companies and people keep more of their money then there's more money in the market being spent and taxed over and over rather than sitting with the IRS never getting taxed again. Add to this what companies do such as investing, creating new jobs, etc... and you open up even more opportunities for even more dollars to be taxed.
Am I an economist? No. And Dan2 could probably write you a book detailing my rather simplistic example above. But I am smart enough to realize the cause and effect relationship of leaving more money in the hands of the people and how in turn that allows for greater tax revenues.
But like you said, back to Hillary. A junior senator, who only ran for the seat to use it as a springboard for her ultimate goal, who never intended on using that position for the good of the people, who has never introduced one piece of legislation, who claims she was tricked by Bush into voting to invade Iraq, to me has absolutely no place being elected to the white house under the false impression that she is "experienced."
So if your concerned about getting the same old should she (or Obama) get elected then I'm with you. I'd rather see someone more moderate which is what I think the country truly needs right now. Unfortunately I haven't seen a candidate on either side of the aisle that comes anywhere close to what we need.
February 6, 2008
4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
joggle,
Again, I appreciate the article, and just so you know, I would agree that it is not always, in theory of course, the best policy to cut taxes no matter what (I would also want to see a decline in spend, EVERY SINGLE TIME).
You may have divined from my posts, but I am not a partisan Republican, by any stretch of the imagination. Fiscal conservative, and am a registered Libertarian, but not partisan on that philosophy either. Essentially, I believe in the smallest functional Federal (and local) Government possible. I believe that the best thing the Government can do for us, is to get out of the way, and assure a level playing field. I think government, as I mentioned before, has become a business in and of itself, and I think when that happens, the consumer loses, because we lose the liberty of choice. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, that is where I stand in the world of politics.
February 6, 2008
4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
I just thought of something that has been ignored recently, but still may be appropriate (again off the tax topic).
What will the impact of a Mayor Bloomberg have on the Presidential race, should he enter as an independent in the General Election? Whom would it likely help, and whom would it hinder, especially in New York?
February 6, 2008
4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Dan2,
I think the points of view in each party generally differ greatly over partisanship. Obama is doing well on a platform of change and of a promise to unify the country (ie, reduce partisanship). McCain, on the other hand, would be having a very difficult time if it was just a two-way race between himself and Romney, despite clearly being the more moderate of the two and running as a war hero during a time of war which is usually a very strong positive, especially as a Republican. There's few (if any) liberals that are so radical that they would seriously oppose either Clinton or Obama and yet there are plenty of conservative Republicans that claim they would sooner not vote than to give a vote for McCain (calling him a RINO of course). There's really no such thing as a DINO (a Democrat in name only) because, in my opinion, it is a much more tolerant party that would not call a presidential candidate a Republican just because they have some conservative leanings (or VP candidate, such as Lieberman who has voted quite often with Republicans on partisan issues).
And remember, while Hillary Clinton may seem like the ultimate liberal to some conservatives, anyone who watches her voting patterns or compares her to true liberals (such as Kennedy or Kucinich) can see a marked difference. She's probably the most hawkish candidate among all of the Democrat presidential candidates (with probably only Joe Lieberman being the only more hawkish Democrat--or former Democrat--senator) and is the only one to still support their vote for authorization for the use of force in Iraq. This is not something that makes hardly any Democrat happy obviously. While she's no Joe Lieberman, she certainly has at least a couple of strong negatives according to the Democrat platform and yet she still is doing OK in the primaries so far.
I still hear on the radio that many Republicans would like even more conservatives on the Supreme Court while the many Democrats I caucased with last night weren't even thinking about the Supreme Court, at least based on the conversations I had with them.
February 6, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Dan2...well, I can't say my research so far has given me any definite conclusions about your premise. It's a new subject for me, but what's apparent so far is there are a lot of variables to consider that haven't been brought up in the discussion.
Specifically, my comments about a "tax cuts means more spending which means more corporate profitability which means higher tax revenues" are:
Number one, we're in a period of inflation - and increasingly higher prices are contributing significantly to higher corporate profitability. Maybe not their profit margins, but certainly their actual, taxable profits. Especially with goods that are essentially fixed, like housing and gas prices. (With the latter, yeah, you can opt to not take a driving vacation, but you're still having to drive to work every day paying exorbitant gas prices. I don't think the oil companies got so profitable the past few years because of tax policy.)So people may not be buying more of these goods, but are spending more on them.
Second, as population growth continues, there are more people added to the tax base, thus increasing the revenues. I looked at the report you suggested, and by far, individual income tax makes up the receipts more than corporate tax receipts. Unless I misinterpreted the report somehow.
I'm not anti-tax cuts, by the way. I don't doubt that more money in our pockets give us more to spend...if we're already in the black. But studies do seem to show that Americans aren't saving at all compared on a historic basis, and hold a lot of credit debt. Couple that with inflation, and we're dipping into credit to keep afloat...which doesn't seem to be stimulating the economy so much as keeping our debt at bay a little bit longer, while we're paying more in taxes because of rising costs.
To me, what would really stimulate the economy in the long run would be to see wages rising in pace with...and eventually outpacing...the cost of living. So, back to the subject of the presidential race...I'd like to see a candidate with some real concrete ideas on how to do that.
February 6, 2008
5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
I think in a year like this it would be a rather bad idea for Mayor Bloomberg to enter the race. All the money in the world won't win you the election, as Mitt Romney is proving and Perot proved before. I could possibly see some independents and Republicans who were going to abstain from voting going his way but I doubt many Democrats would because they generally have no strong objections to either Obama or Clinton and are very driven to get a Democrat into the White House after suffering 8 years of Bush. I've heard a few Dems claiming that they wouldn't vote for Clinton in the national election if she won the primary but I'm willing to bet they would have a change of heart once the Clinton political machine got into full swing preceding the national vote.
Hopefully he'll bide his time and make a run sometime in the future. I have no doubt that he could be a great president.
February 6, 2008
5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
mts,
You didn't misread the reports, but it is the allocation of those receipts that is telling. Again, entitlements, in theory, pay for themselves through payroll tax. The taxes on Corporations (at a higher percentage than individual receipts), essentially pay for national defense, and then it is the ear-marks that we "borrow" against, and individual income tax receipts go to the World Bank to pay off our interest rate liability (the "vic" on a loan if you were dealing with the mob).
I am with you 100% though. If we are to lower taxes, we also MUST decrease spend, regardless of if we see an increase in receipts. That is just good fiscal policy, and something I may add, President Clinton and the Republican Congress did VERY well.
February 6, 2008
5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
I agree with your assessment joggle on Mayor Bloomberg, but I could see him attempting to be a spoiler (I think he absolutely would have entered the race if Mayor Giuliani would have been the Republican nominee. It is my understanding they just don't like each other that much). However, I could also see him attempting to spoil a Clinton run, by pulling a good portion of the city's vote with him, because he was not very friendly with President Clinton and his policies either.
If it is McCain, he has that Maverick quality and I am certain that hard core Republicans would not gravitate towards a Bloomberg candidacy, and probably wouldn't pull that many conservative independents outside of Florida and New York (and maybe Vermont). What I could see is if Sen. Clinton wins the nomination of her party, that many moderate to conservative Democrats could "potentially" move towards a Bloomberg, or even a McCain. If Sen. Obama (which honestly is a long shot), secures the nomination, I see Bloomberg sitting this out, and biding his time.
So much fun to discuss politics isn't it?
February 6, 2008
5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
mytwosense: It's a difficult subject to research. You can get a good understanding of the traditional Keynesian economic model by watching the Economics U$A series (see http://www.efcvideo.com/EconomicsUSA/). They discuss Friedman's model as well if I recall correctly. You can get a pretty good understanding of supply-side theory by watching the 'Free to Choose' series hosted by the famous economist Milton Friedman on PBS (available on google video and youtube. You can also find them hosted at http://www.ideachannel.tv/). And then there's tons of books you can find at your local library I'm sure--just search for 'new keynesian' or something similar for current demand-side theory. The Denver library almost certainly has the full set of Economic U$A series.
Unfortunately my favorite economic show is no longer on the air (Wall $treet Week, hosted by Louis Rukeyser). That was a great place to go to get the scoop on Wall Street, some talk about economic theory and discussions about current fiscal policy. Their yearly stock predictions were also more accurate than any others telivised that I'm aware of. :(
February 6, 2008
5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
"because he was not very friendly with President Clinton and his policies either."
Heck, you could put most Democrat congressmen from the 90s into that boat :P. At times it seemed like he had nothing but enemies in Congress and probably had more veto overrides than any other president (I could be wrong, but it seemed like a lot to me).
It's hard to predict what Bloomberg will actually do. I agree that he would be more likely to enter if Clinton is nominated and would surely pull some of the NYC votes away from her. In what quantity? I have no idea--I'm not a New Yorker...
"So much fun to discuss politics isn't it?"
Heck yea! My grandmother introduced me to politics and economics at an early age and the bug has never left.
February 6, 2008
6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Dan2, KW:
I never meant to imply that the simple premise I put forth, backed by simple mathematics, is in reality the way things work or that there are no nuances or factors that alter the equation.
I'm merely saying that the place where you must *start* when trying to prove that trickle-down economics work is by disproving the basic assumption that higher tax rates equal more revenue.
I understand the *theory* that you guys are presenting, but I haven't seen any real world evidence that it works.
I'm willing to take a look when/if it's presented.
Dan2, regarding this:
"Another way to look at it is, where is the incentive to report higher income if the tax rate is significantly higher at a lower income level? Would it not make sense, for those that are able to afford it, to "hide" real income so as to report at a lower rate, thereby negating an inflation of the tax receipts?"
This is a cynical assumption, but I don't doubt it. However, it does nothing to prove that trickle down economics work. It only suggests that we need to enforce tax law more fastidiously and not let people cheat.
February 6, 2008
6:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Dan2,
"Sure, I understand procedural rules in Congress."
Really? That's more than I can claim. I'm sure you didn't mean that literally as the senate rules and procedures are horribly complicated and even some senators don't fully understand the rules. I've tried to read through their rule book but it's like reading a dense law book which is not the most fun thing to do in the world. Like me, you know about filibusters and basic rules but p