The Fiscal Cliff talks

[dayman]

Anyone amused that the GOP spent all summer saying Obama wants to cut Medicare and will hurt it and now weeks after the election they are complaining that Obama isn't cutting medicare enough?

[TakeYouToTasker]

http://news.yahoo.com/two-conservative-republicans-booted-house-budget-panel-154212850--business.html

 

 

Booted! Taking out the tea party trash

Relevance?

 

Seems like a stand alone topic for a new thread.

[birdog1960]

My holdings are long term; I recovered nicely from 2008, so I'll just ride along as is over the cliff. POTUS is just stylin' right now, and he will not blink right away. He has no regard for those outside his immediate circle of advisors.

i think most everyone recovered nicely but think of what could have been if you took your money out when you first heard about lehman when the s&p was at 1100 or so and then bought back in near the bottom at 600...could have more than doubled your balance. i'm not saying it's gonna happen again but it might. i know all about "don't time the market" but 2008 proved that there are exceptions to the rule. i don't see a big risk in being on the sidelines for a month or 2 but i could certainly be wrong. finance guys, what say you?

[CosmicBills]

Wouldn't that be redundant at that point?

 

 

.

Stop murdering my dreams with logic, B-Man!!!

[RkFast]

Want to be enraged?

 

http://www.weeklysta...tes_665036.html

 

Tell me again about "Fox bias" libs.

 

And the President is consulting with...AL !@#$ING SHARPTON on issues of taxes?

 

Enraging.

 

DOUBLY enraging for people like me who live in NYC and had a front row seat to Sharpton's Freddies Fashion Mart, Tawana Brawley, Crown Heights, etc. nonsense. Now that race-baiting scumbag is yukking it up in the West Wing.

Edited December 4, 2012 by RkFast

[3rdnlng]

Do you want to give me a cherry-picked date for the start of QE1 which gives you that result? Wouldn't you agree that QE1 starts with the bankruptcy of Lehman? Or are you going to pick a date closer to the bottoming out of commodity prices due to the recession?

 

At least you understand that the other QEs have no impact on demand-side inflation as long as banks aren't lending.

 

As anyone who has been around here awhile knows, my take is that QE2, which began in 20104Q, is that it caused a speculative run-up in commodities as investors believed it would lead to inflation. Instead, the artificial commodity bubble was pricked by the lack of underlying demad at the end of April 2011.

 

No. Bush tax cuts caused the budget to go from suplus to deficit once enacted, and this was in an expanding economy. Go check the numbers; I'm not going to do your work. Though here's a bit....Outstanding debt was $5.6 trillion when he came in and $10 trillion when he left.

 

You can't be that daft to not understand the recessions impact on deficits?

 

Here's an article for you that tends to refute what you are claiming:

 

 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/112812-635034-5-secrets-about-the-bush-tax-cuts.htm

 

 

 

 

It's been more than 10 years since President Bush signed his first round of tax cuts into law. And in the years since, those cuts have been the source of constant attacks. Critics charge they gave away too much to the rich, exploded the deficit, contributed to income inequality, did little to spur economic growth, and so on.

 

President Obama has for years attacked the Bush cuts, and demanded that the top two income tax brackets return to Clinton-era levels.

 

But a decade of debate and discussion has managed to shed little light on what the Bush tax cuts actually did.

 

So as the debate heats up once again as part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, it's worth taking the time to highlight some of the things most people never knew about the Bush-era tax cuts.

 

The rich paid more. Despite endless claims by critics that Bush's tax cuts favored the rich, the fact is the rich ended up paying more in taxes after they went into effect.

 

In fact, IRS data show that the richest 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they had in 2000 — that's a 23% increase — even though their average tax rate went down.

 

What's more, their share of the overall income tax burden grew, climbing from 37% in 2000 to 40% in 2007.

 

At the other end of the spectrum, the bottom half of taxpayers paid $6 billion less in income taxes in 2007 than they had seven years earlier — a 16% drop — and their share of the total income tax burden dropped from 3.9% to 2.9%.

 

 

 

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/112812-635034-5-secrets-about-the-bush-tax-cuts.htm#ixzz2E7gUSFoL

[TPS]

Here's an article for you that tends to refute what you are claiming:

 

 

http://news.investor...sh-tax-cuts.htm

 

 

 

 

It's been more than 10 years since President Bush signed his first round of tax cuts into law. And in the years since, those cuts have been the source of constant attacks. Critics charge they gave away too much to the rich, exploded the deficit, contributed to income inequality, did little to spur economic growth, and so on.

 

President Obama has for years attacked the Bush cuts, and demanded that the top two income tax brackets return to Clinton-era levels.

 

But a decade of debate and discussion has managed to shed little light on what the Bush tax cuts actually did.

 

So as the debate heats up once again as part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, it's worth taking the time to highlight some of the things most people never knew about the Bush-era tax cuts.

 

The rich paid more. Despite endless claims by critics that Bush's tax cuts favored the rich, the fact is the rich ended up paying more in taxes after they went into effect.

 

In fact, IRS data show that the richest 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they had in 2000 — that's a 23% increase — even though their average tax rate went down.

 

What's more, their share of the overall income tax burden grew, climbing from 37% in 2000 to 40% in 2007.

 

At the other end of the spectrum, the bottom half of taxpayers paid $6 billion less in income taxes in 2007 than they had seven years earlier — a 16% drop — and their share of the total income tax burden dropped from 3.9% to 2.9%.

 

 

 

Read More At IBD: http://news.investor...m#ixzz2E7gUSFoL

You're kidding, yes?

The guy uses a cbo projection of a surplus to back his claim, without realizing that same cbo study said the tax cuts would reduce revenues by $1.1 trillion from 2002-11.

And the fact that the top 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they paid in 2000?!!? That's support? In a growing economy it took 7 years to generate an additional $84 billion in taxes paid?

Look at the irs data he links to. Look at the drop in taxes paid by the top 1%--it drops 3 straight years, 2001-3. Do you know how much more income the top 1% got from 2000-07? They got an extra $672 billion in AGI! Gee, their income went up $672 billion, so you would hope the amount of taxes they paid over that period went up. Duh!

In fact, we can estimate their marginal tax rate paid on that increased income, it was 12.5%.

Find something serious next time...

[TPS]

The data was for November, when the QE1 timeline began. Beyond the fact that it's the pinnicle of absurdity to begin anywhere but the beginning, the data wasn't "cherry picked" from the market floor. Had I done that, I would have used the data from February 09' instead, and reported commodities inflation of 53.55%.

 

As to your theory, I'm underwhelmed. Theories that attempt to insulate themselves from negative causal effects by writing off real supply and demand market trends (an increase in the money supply will always lead to a lower demand for currency relative to commodities) are a fool's venture.

I could quibble that October would be the appropriate starting date, regardless... Are you really saying all of the massive QE liquidity caused commodity prices to rise on average by 9%/year?

If you say you're underwhelmed by my theory, aren't you implying the same when you say that QE is what sparked the rise in commodity prices? If so, where's the underlying supply and demand in your thesis?

Edited December 4, 2012 by TPS

[dayman]

sparring with Tasker over QE...hehe...hope you love it as much as he does or else he'll win this war of attrition

Edited December 4, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

You're kidding, yes?

The guy uses a cbo projection of a surplus to back his claim, without realizing that same cbo study said the tax cuts would reduce revenues by $1.1 trillion from 2002-11.

And the fact that the top 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they paid in 2000?!!? That's support? In a growing economy it took 7 years to generate an additional $84 billion in taxes paid?

Look at the irs data he links to. Look at the drop in taxes paid by the top 1%--it drops 3 straight years, 2001-3. Do you know how much more income the top 1% got from 2000-07? They got an extra $672 billion in AGI! Gee, their income went up $672 billion, so you would hope the amount of taxes they paid over that period went up. Duh!

In fact, we can estimate their marginal tax rate paid on that increased income, it was 12.5%.

Find something serious next time...

Did the tax cuts reduce revenues from 2002-11? Why did the taxes paid for by the top 1% drop from 2001-2003? So, we really gained 84 billion from the 1% in 4 years, once the economy got going again. I guess if the top 1% income went up 672 billion then Bush's tax cuts must have worked, eh?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I could quibble that October would be the appropriate starting date, regardless... Are you really saying all of the massive QE liquidity caused commodity prices to rise on average by 9%/year?

If you say you're underwhelmed by my theory, aren't you implying the same when you say that QE is what sparked the rise in commodity prices? If so, where's the underlying supply and demand in your thesis?

It shows up in two distinct phases.

 

First, with currency being nothing more than a marker for items of actual human utility (I'm not a gold advocate in terms of a monetary system, as I find it's "real" value to be far too arbitrary, despite being apparently intrinsic.), when you increase it's supply, you lessen it's quality as a place holder, because wealth it represents is not unlimited. As this occurs, it causes waves of "dollar flight" as individuals seek cover from purchasing power erosion in more stable finite assets. This is where we are now.

 

The second phase, where you actually become a bit closer to the mark, is the business-cycle boom created by malinvestment in response to government and Fed policy, in which demand becomes driven by market frenzy rather than real supply and demand curves, and will eventually lead to a bust. We aren't there yet.

[TPS]

It shows up in two distinct phases.

 

First, with currency being nothing more than a marker for items of actual human utility (I'm not a gold advocate in terms of a monetary system, as I find it's "real" value to be far too arbitrary, despite being apparently intrinsic.), when you increase it's supply, you lessen it's quality as a place holder, because wealth it represents is not unlimited. As this occurs, it causes waves of "dollar flight" as individuals seek cover from purchasing power erosion in more stable finite assets. This is where we are now.

 

The second phase, where you actually become a bit closer to the mark, is the business-cycle boom created by malinvestment in response to government and Fed policy, in which demand becomes driven by market frenzy rather than real supply and demand curves, and will eventually lead to a bust. We aren't there yet.

So you're an Austrian.

I think we have semantic differences, but we're not too far off. My description is that money is a claim on resources, and when you increase the claims relative to the supply of real things, then the price of those things goes up. However, those claims have to in the hands of people who are buying things. As we agree, most of the liquidity created by the Fed is sitting as excess reserves.

 

What you describe is essentially what I am saying. The difference is that I argue it is the perception/belief that QE will have cause inflation which actually brings it about. Investors reacting to the belief that commodities can act as a store of stable purchasing power, their actions actually make it so. In my case, I argue that the underlying real demand for those resources doesn't justify the investor driven price increases, so the bubble eventually pops when real demand by users declines from the higher prices.

 

Did the tax cuts reduce revenues from 2002-11? Why did the taxes paid for by the top 1% drop from 2001-2003? So, we really gained 84 billion from the 1% in 4 years, once the economy got going again. I guess if the top 1% income went up 672 billion then Bush's tax cuts must have worked, eh?

Yes, they worked to funnel more money to the 1%. However, with respect to economic growth, the worst performance of any president since WW2.

[3rdnlng]

So you're an Austrian.

I think we have semantic differences, but we're not too far off. My description is that money is a claim on resources, and when you increase the claims relative to the supply of real things, then the price of those things goes up. However, those claims have to in the hands of people who are buying things. As we agree, most of the liquidity created by the Fed is sitting as excess reserves.

 

What you describe is essentially what I am saying. The difference is that I argue it is the perception/belief that QE will have cause inflation which actually brings it about. Investors reacting to the belief that commodities can act as a store of stable purchasing power, their actions actually make it so. In my case, I argue that the underlying real demand for those resources doesn't justify the investor driven price increases, so the bubble eventually pops when real demand by users declines from the higher prices.

 

Yes, they worked to funnel more money to the 1%. However, with respect to economic growth, the worst performance of any president since WW2.

 

Does that "worst performance" include Carter and Obama? If we take 2008 out of the picture how does it look?

[TPS]

Does that "worst performance" include Carter and Obama? If we take 2008 out of the picture how does it look?

Give Obama his 8 years, then we'll see.

Real growth was higher under carter than bush. Do your homework.

[3rdnlng]

Give Obama his 8 years, then we'll see.

Real growth was higher under carter than bush. Do your homework.

 

"Real growth"----is that adjusted for ridiculous inflation and 20% mortgage interest rates? You should know that there are causes and effects and to try cherry picking to prove a point makes you look very small.

[TPS]

"Real growth"----is that adjusted for ridiculous inflation and 20% mortgage interest rates? You should know that there are causes and effects and to try cherry picking to prove a point makes you look very small.

It's time to do your homework.

[3rdnlng]

It's time to do your homework.

 

Yes, Connor.

[birdog1960]

fiscal cliff, al sharpton? i'm howlin at the moon!

[TPS]

Yes, Connor.

It's clear that your bias prevents you from seeing reality. Here's what the CBO report, linked in the editorial you posted, states:

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-16) is estimated to reduce revenues by $70 billion in 2001 and

nearly $1.2 trillion over the 2002-2011 period.

There, I've done your homework.

[3rdnlng]

It's clear that your bias prevents you from seeing reality. Here's what the CBO report, linked in the editorial you posted, states:

 

There, I've done your homework.

 

Go back and read over starting with page 9. The summaries and charts should educate you. Not that any of it turned out to be accurate, but that's what the CBO thought at the time.