3 ms·

> And how much debt did we run up during this period? About what we're going to run up in the next couple of years. The difference being that the deficit was

by anamax 16y ago

> And how much debt did we run up during this period? About what we're going to run up in the next couple of years. The difference being that the deficit was going down and now it's roughly stable (Obama's predictions) at roughly twice as high. > And since when does Congress write the federal budget? They pass it. Bush wasn't all that good on spending as the prescription drug monstrosity proved. However, he was better than Obama. > As for your comparison of boom-period deficits with emergency post-recession deficits, surely you can't expect me to take this seriously. Sure I can - the recession ended a year ago. More to the point, the spending isn't going down post-recession. That's why the projected deficits are staying high. > Share of the tax burden is irrelevant You're claiming that the rich aren't paying enough. I'm pointing out that they're paying more than they did before. > Marginal rates are the only thing that counts on the individual level. The rate that actually matters is not the worst case marginal rate, but the rate seen by an individual. The high rates in the past were accompanied by a lot of loopholes and the like that disappeared with Reagan.

anigbrowl 16y ago
The deficit only appeared to be going down because GDP was distorted by a massive asset bubble, which just might have had something to do with the second (JGGTRA) cut bringing forward cuts in capital gains taxes that were supposed to be phased in slowly. And as I have observed elsewhere, doing absolutely nothing to trim its own spending. Doubtless you also have a justification for things like $38,000 tax breaks on Hummers - http://www.seattlepi.com/local/104601_hummer17.shtml http://www.seattlepi.com/local/104601_hummer17.shtml Sure I can - the recession ended a year ago. More to the point, the spending isn't going down post-recession. Right, because demand and thus growth are well known for immediately returning to their previous levels following a recession. And increasing your spending at the same time you cut taxes, using borrowed money, is fiscally responsible and doesn't have the slightest impact on future budgets. You're claiming that the rich aren't paying enough. I'm pointing out that they're paying more than they did before. a) No I'm not, I think everyone is going to have to pay some more taxes; b) They're paying more in nominal terms because they have a greater share of national income. Let's consider an example. I am rich, you are not. My income works out at $1,000/day, yours is more like $200/day. I pay, say, $400/day in taxes, you pay something like $50. We are more or less OK with that. Then I fire you (and a lot of other people) and outsource your factory job to someone in Asia, who is willing to work for $20/day and pays no US income tax. You get another job, probably at a Walmart, that pays $100/day and now you only pay $10 of it in taxes, mostly payroll. My income has gone up to $2,000/day and I'm paying $700 of that in taxes (because the tax rate got cut a little bit, from 40% to 35%). I think it's just terrible that I'm paying an extra $300 in taxes already and now Obama wants to put it up to a total of $800, which will leave me taking home only twice as much as I was before. You should feel sorry for me, because you are 80% better off than you were before: you used to pay $50 in taxes, but now you only pay $10, you freeloader. My taxes are 70 times higher than yours, and Obama wants to make it 80 times higher. Stupid, right? But that entire last paragraph is technically true. It just invites you to forget, briefly, about the changes in how much we take home each day. If I'm feeling particularly lucky, I might try changing the subject to something else, and then reminding you of how little you earn so I can attribute the blame to Obama for that, too.
- anamax 16y ago
  > The deficit only appeared to be going down because GDP was distorted by a massive asset bubble The deficit is defined as the difference between tax revenues and govt spending. Are you suggesting that tax revenues were inflated? > Right, because demand and thus growth are well known for immediately returning to their previous levels following a recession. A recession is defined as two or more consecutive quarters of 0 growth or contraction. The end of a recession is, by definition, a quarter of growth. We haven't had any contraction in the last year. However, growth after a recession is usually fairly vigorous and the growth after this recession has been pretty anemic. > And as I have observed elsewhere, doing absolutely nothing to trim its own spending. That's too kind - spending increased significantly under W. By previous standards, those increases were obscene. By current/Obama standards, the increases were modest. (FWIW, military spending as a fraction of govt spending continues to drop. We're way lower now than after vietnam, let alone during.) Much, but not all, of the W deficit came from Iraq and Afghanistan, which were/are winding down. However, W's deficits started dropping before then. They didn't explode again until the dems took congress. (Congressional repubs were a lame brake on W's spending tendencies. Congressional Dems were no brake at all - their complaint about the prescription drug benefit monstrosity was that it wasn't big enough.) I note that you think that W's spending is unreasonable but are happy with Obama spending far more. Curious. But I'll bite - what spending, other than Iraq and Afghanistan, would you have cut from W's term? I've mentioned one possible answer, the prescription drug plan. Or, is your only real complaint that W didn't collect enough tax revenue? The "outsource" story is cute, but irrelevant because increased tax rates don't decrease off-shoring. You forgot the other part - rich people are (potential) job creators. The middle class,not so much. The poor, almost not at all. Money goes to where it's welcome. I'd like that to be the US because there's a big benefit to having money around. You seem hung up on relative levels. I'm not. I don't care what you have. I care what I have. I'd much rather be poor in the US than in the middle almost anywhere else. How about you?

by anamax 16y ago

anigbrowl 16y ago

The deficit only appeared to be going down because GDP was distorted by a massive asset bubble, which just might have had something to do with the second (JGGTRA) cut bringing forward cuts in capital gains taxes that were supposed to be phased in slowly. And as I have observed elsewhere, doing absolutely nothing to trim its own spending. Doubtless you also have a justification for things like $38,000 tax breaks on Hummers - http://www.seattlepi.com/local/104601_hummer17.shtml http://www.seattlepi.com/local/104601_hummer17.shtml Sure I can - the recession ended a year ago. More to the point, the spending isn't going down post-recession. Right, because demand and thus growth are well known for immediately returning to their previous levels following a recession. And increasing your spending at the same time you cut taxes, using borrowed money, is fiscally responsible and doesn't have the slightest impact on future budgets. You're claiming that the rich aren't paying enough. I'm pointing out that they're paying more than they did before. a) No I'm not, I think everyone is going to have to pay some more taxes; b) They're paying more in nominal terms because they have a greater share of national income. Let's consider an example. I am rich, you are not. My income works out at $1,000/day, yours is more like $200/day. I pay, say, $400/day in taxes, you pay something like $50. We are more or less OK with that. Then I fire you (and a lot of other people) and outsource your factory job to someone in Asia, who is willing to work for $20/day and pays no US income tax. You get another job, probably at a Walmart, that pays $100/day and now you only pay $10 of it in taxes, mostly payroll. My income has gone up to $2,000/day and I'm paying $700 of that in taxes (because the tax rate got cut a little bit, from 40% to 35%). I think it's just terrible that I'm paying an extra $300 in taxes already and now Obama wants to put it up to a total of $800, which will leave me taking home only twice as much as I was before. You should feel sorry for me, because you are 80% better off than you were before: you used to pay $50 in taxes, but now you only pay $10, you freeloader. My taxes are 70 times higher than yours, and Obama wants to make it 80 times higher. Stupid, right? But that entire last paragraph is technically true. It just invites you to forget, briefly, about the changes in how much we take home each day. If I'm feeling particularly lucky, I might try changing the subject to something else, and then reminding you of how little you earn so I can attribute the blame to Obama for that, too.

anamax 16y ago
> The deficit only appeared to be going down because GDP was distorted by a massive asset bubble The deficit is defined as the difference between tax revenues and govt spending. Are you suggesting that tax revenues were inflated? > Right, because demand and thus growth are well known for immediately returning to their previous levels following a recession. A recession is defined as two or more consecutive quarters of 0 growth or contraction. The end of a recession is, by definition, a quarter of growth. We haven't had any contraction in the last year. However, growth after a recession is usually fairly vigorous and the growth after this recession has been pretty anemic. > And as I have observed elsewhere, doing absolutely nothing to trim its own spending. That's too kind - spending increased significantly under W. By previous standards, those increases were obscene. By current/Obama standards, the increases were modest. (FWIW, military spending as a fraction of govt spending continues to drop. We're way lower now than after vietnam, let alone during.) Much, but not all, of the W deficit came from Iraq and Afghanistan, which were/are winding down. However, W's deficits started dropping before then. They didn't explode again until the dems took congress. (Congressional repubs were a lame brake on W's spending tendencies. Congressional Dems were no brake at all - their complaint about the prescription drug benefit monstrosity was that it wasn't big enough.) I note that you think that W's spending is unreasonable but are happy with Obama spending far more. Curious. But I'll bite - what spending, other than Iraq and Afghanistan, would you have cut from W's term? I've mentioned one possible answer, the prescription drug plan. Or, is your only real complaint that W didn't collect enough tax revenue? The "outsource" story is cute, but irrelevant because increased tax rates don't decrease off-shoring. You forgot the other part - rich people are (potential) job creators. The middle class,not so much. The poor, almost not at all. Money goes to where it's welcome. I'd like that to be the US because there's a big benefit to having money around. You seem hung up on relative levels. I'm not. I don't care what you have. I care what I have. I'd much rather be poor in the US than in the middle almost anywhere else. How about you?