Obamanomics

[TPS]

 

 

You have artificially connected GDP to tax receipts by stating percentages. It's really quite simple, you dolt. Lowering the tax rates got the economy going and increased GDP significantly. Just because we didn't choose to spend a higher percentage doesn't mean we didn't spend a higher amount. Confuse the issue all you want, but it is a fact that tax receipts were much higher once the lower tax rates took full effect. You actually teach economics?

its obviously too complicated for you. Any Keynesian will tell you that deficits stimulate the economy, and deficits increase from either tax cuts, increased spending, or a combination of the two. No one has claimed that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy--it's Keynesian. What you idiots fail to believe, even though the data stares you in the face, is that tax revenues fall in the years when the cuts are made. When you stop cutting the rates and income goes up, revenues go up--duh!

 

Again, the only way to compare different tax rate structures is by looking at what's known as the full employment or structural deficit. If you can't see that, than you are a blowhard.

 

Re, your response 3rd shows just how disingenuous your are. Where did I state more regulation was the answer? The only way you can prove yourself right in any argument is to make **** up.

 

[3rdnlng]

its obviously too complicated for you. Any Keynesian will tell you that deficits stimulate the economy, and deficits increase from either tax cuts, increased spending, or a combination of the two. No one has claimed that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy--it's Keynesian. What you idiots fail to believe, even though the data stares you in the face, is that tax revenues fall in the years when the cuts are made. When you stop cutting the rates and income goes up, revenues go up--duh!

 

Again, the only way to compare different tax rate structures is by looking at what's known as the full employment or structural deficit. If you can't see that, than you are a blowhard.

 

Re, your response 3rd shows just how disingenuous your are. Where did I state more regulation was the answer? The only way you can prove yourself right in any argument is to make **** up.

 

I guess your attention to detail is lacking. I didn't say anything about regulation. Who's making schit up now? Calling me a blowhard for supposedly not seeing something is the wrong use of the word "blowhard".

 

If deficit spending is the way to go then this economy should have been rocking the last several years. I agree that tax receipts will most likely go down in the year they are made, but they stimulate the economy and it grows thus increasing tax receipts. See the attached. Take a look at what happened in the last decade or so to receipts after the Bush tax cuts fully too effect.

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

[OCinBuffalo]

hehehehe....

 

3rd never stated that you said regulation was the answer TPS.

 

That was me.

 

Still waiting for you to explain how more regulation, which necessitates more regulators hired from the industry they are to regulate, decreases the "revolving door", and, still waiting for you to describe how giving politicians or bureaucrats more power, keeps corruption at bay.

 

If these people have nothing to sell, corporations have nothing to buy. EDIT: And what are they buying? Answer: A-hole politician shake-down insurance. When you get done talking, this will still be true.

 

Whatever solution we arrive at, it cannot ignore the above because you wish it wasn't true. It is true, and the entire "centralization of power" scheme that the turds you support have been running, is throwing off empirical evidence of this by the day.

 

We need new solutions for the modern age we live in. We need to stop reaching back to 1965 for the answers to everything. We absolutely need to stop reaching back to 1932 and pretending Keynes was some expert on how to fix these problems we have today. The man said "in the long run, we're all dead". Yes, they are dead, we are alive, and we are now living their "long run". Great! He should have said: "Screw TPS and OCinBuffalo, I don't know them, and who cares what I do to them".

 

Our response must reciprocate: F them. F their "solutions". They are the reason we are where we are. Enough is enough.

 

It's time to stop being nostalgic, and start doing some real thinking. The people that should be doing the thinking, are instead, protecting legacies.

 

I can't hire LBJs legacy, nor can people eat it, or put it in their gas tank.

 

The fact that you can't get past defining everything you support, in terms of something that happened 60-80 years ago....

 

....and....

 

call yourself "progressive"?

 

Absolutely hilarious. TR is the progressive. You are the nostalgic.

Edited December 5, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[keepthefaith]

its obviously too complicated for you. Any Keynesian will tell you that deficits stimulate the economy, and deficits increase from either tax cuts, increased spending, or a combination of the two. No one has claimed that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy--it's Keynesian. What you idiots fail to believe, even though the data stares you in the face, is that tax revenues fall in the years when the cuts are made. When you stop cutting the rates and income goes up, revenues go up--duh!

 

Again, the only way to compare different tax rate structures is by looking at what's known as the full employment or structural deficit. If you can't see that, than you are a blowhard.

 

Re, your response 3rd shows just how disingenuous your are. Where did I state more regulation was the answer? The only way you can prove yourself right in any argument is to make **** up.

 

Let me offer a bit of support. I did see a post from you a while back that stated you think spending ought to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 19% of GDP. That would make you a fiscal scrooge by recent standards.

[TPS]

 

 

I guess your attention to detail is lacking. I didn't say anything about regulation. Who's making schit up now? Calling me a blowhard for supposedly not seeing something is the wrong use of the word "blowhard".

 

If deficit spending is the way to go then this economy should have been rocking the last several years. I agree that tax receipts will most likely go down in the year they are made, but they stimulate the economy and it grows thus increasing tax receipts. See the attached. Take a look at what happened in the last decade or so to receipts after the Bush tax cuts fully too effect.

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

been out drinking with an old bills safety...

First, sorry, that was meant as a response to OCretard.

 

Now we're getting somewhere. It's clear revenues fell when tax rates decline, though it's based on simple math. If the % cut in taxes is greater than the % increase in income for a given year then revenues fall. It's quite possible that income will increase greater than than the tax cut %, but it didn't happen for bush during those 3 years.

Once tax cuts stop, if income rises, of course revenues rise. It's math. As I agreed in another post, deficits are expansionary, so when Bush cut taxes and I creased spending, deficits soared after we had surpluses. Those deficits helped propel the economy. Again, that's standard Keynesian theory.

 

 

hehehehe....

 

3rd never stated that you said regulation was the answer TPS.

 

That was me.

 

Still waiting for you to explain how more regulation, which necessitates more regulators hired from the industry they are to regulate, decreases the "revolving door", and, still waiting for you to describe how giving politicians or bureaucrats more power, keeps corruption at bay.

 

If these people have nothing to sell, corporations have nothing to buy. EDIT: And what are they buying? Answer: A-hole politician shake-down insurance. When you get done talking, this will still be true.

 

Whatever solution we arrive at, it cannot ignore the above because you wish it wasn't true. It is true, and the entire "centralization of power" scheme that the turds you support have been running, is throwing off empirical evidence of this by the day.

 

We need new solutions for the modern age we live in. We need to stop reaching back to 1965 for the answers to everything. We absolutely need to stop reaching back to 1932 and pretending Keynes was some expert on how to fix these problems we have today. The man said "in the long run, we're all dead". Yes, they are dead, we are alive, and we are now living their "long run". Great! He should have said: "Screw TPS and OCinBuffalo, I don't know them, and who cares what I do to them".

 

Our response must reciprocate: F them. F their "solutions". They are the reason we are where we are. Enough is enough.

 

It's time to stop being nostalgic, and start doing some real thinking. The people that should be doing the thinking, are instead, protecting legacies.

 

I can't hire LBJs legacy, nor can people eat it, or put it in their gas tank.

 

The fact that you can't get past defining everything you support, in terms of something that happened 60-80 years ago....

 

....and....

 

call yourself "progressive"?

 

Absolutely hilarious. TR is the progressive. You are the nostalgic.

go back and read my last post in that thread you idiot.

 

 

 

Let me offer a bit of support. I did see a post from you a while back that stated you think spending ought to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 19% of GDP. That would make you a fiscal scrooge by recent standards.

faith, I'm happy someone finally understands that I am not a liberal spendthrift. However, my understanding of macro makes me argue for big deficits when we were in the worst crisis since the 1930s. Once we are truly on the road to recovery, then this so-called government of the people needs to be taken to the carpet. Idiots like OCretard don't get it. I think DC is right, he's so focused on himself and trying to show everyone how smart he is, that he totally misses anyone's point.

[Tiberius]

been out drinking with an old bills safety...

First, sorry, that was meant as a response to OCretard.

 

Now we're getting somewhere. It's clear revenues fell when tax rates decline, though it's based on simple math. If the % cut in taxes is greater than the % increase in income for a given year then revenues fall. It's quite possible that income will increase greater than than the tax cut %, but it didn't happen for bush during those 3 years.

Once tax cuts stop, if income rises, of course revenues rise. It's math. As I agreed in another post, deficits are expansionary, so when Bush cut taxes and I creased spending, deficits soared after we had surpluses. Those deficits helped propel the economy. Again, that's standard Keynesian theory.

 

 

go back and read my last post in that thread you idiot.

 

faith, I'm happy someone finally understands that I am not a liberal spendthrift. However, my understanding of macro makes me argue for big deficits when we were in the worst crisis since the 1930s. Once we are truly on the road to recovery, then this so-called government of the people needs to be taken to the carpet. Idiots like OCretard don't get it. I think DC is right, he's so focused on himself and trying to show everyone how smart he is, that he totally misses anyone's point.

 

I have a question for you or anyone that cares to answer. Is the Stock Market doing so well now mostly because of the Fed's loose money policy, and is it reasonably to suspect that when/if the economy picks up (I mean lower unemployment mostly) and the fed backs off, the stock market might not do as well even with a better economic situation? I'm thinking that inflation might bring higher interest rates and bonds might become more attractive than stocks. Also, I was interested in the idea that so much of the fed new money just goes right into stocks...you know, instread of into creating jobs directly?

 

Just throwing that out there

[3rdnlng]

I have a question for you or anyone that cares to answer. Is the Stock Market doing so well now mostly because of the Fed's loose money policy, and is it reasonably to suspect that when/if the economy picks up (I mean lower unemployment mostly) and the fed backs off, the stock market might not do as well even with a better economic situation? I'm thinking that inflation might bring higher interest rates and bonds might become more attractive than stocks. Also, I was interested in the idea that so much of the fed new money just goes right into stocks...you know, instread of into creating jobs directly?

 

Just throwing that out there

 

Your best post by far. Are you finally realizing that actions have consequences? Stocks are overvalued by cheap money. If I had a ton of access to cheap money I'd be investing in hard assets like the buildings that dollar stores are located in. You could make 6% on other people's money and more than double that on your own investment.

[TPS]

 

 

I have a question for you or anyone that cares to answer. Is the Stock Market doing so well now mostly because of the Fed's loose money policy, and is it reasonably to suspect that when/if the economy picks up (I mean lower unemployment mostly) and the fed backs off, the stock market might not do as well even with a better economic situation? I'm thinking that inflation might bring higher interest rates and bonds might become more attractive than stocks. Also, I was interested in the idea that so much of the fed new money just goes right into stocks...you know, instread of into creating jobs directly?

 

Just throwing that out there

there are a lot of factors going on here, as always. I predicted at the beginning of this year that the economy would pick up in the second half after the tax increases and sequester cuts would slow things in the first half. The right wing nuts tried to derail things again in October. Despite that, the economy has gained some momentum. Based on my prediction I went 100% into equities this year, and I'm up 25%. In the past two weeks I got a little defensive and am now 40% equities, waiting for a little correction to jump back in again full speed ahead. I predicted a good year in stocks based on a finally improving economy and the fact that extreme inequality in the US means there is a huge pool of money desperately seeking high returns. The Fed's low interest rate policy fuels that as well. Now to answer your question. There will be an irrational reaction to the Fed backing off--the so-called tapering. I view this as an opportunity to jump back into the market 100%. While the end of historically low interest rates and Fed intervention will cause many to reverse some leveraged bets, the Fed's tapering will happen because of things that support stock prices (lower unemployment and a growing economy), and that irrational initial action will reverse, supporting stocks. This might be the correction in process now? Once you see the drop happen from the change in Fed policy, don't miss the rally that will go on after that, which will last at least another year.

 

Regarding your last point. Monetary policy, low interest rates, mostly indirectly impacts the economy through changing asset prices. Unless the Fed gives money to you and me, it can't directly influence unemployment.

[Tiberius]

there are a lot of factors going on here, as ow 40% equities, waiting for a little correction to jump back in again full speed ahead. I predicted a good year in stocks based on a finally improving economy and the fact that extreme inequality in the US means there is a huge pool of money desperately seeking high returns. The Fed's low interest rate policy fuels that as well. Now to answer your question. There will be an irrational reaction to the Fed backing off--the so-called tapering. I view this as an opportunity to jump back into the market 100%. While the end of historically low and Fed intervention will cause many stock prices (lower unemployment and a growing economy), and that irrational initial action will reverse, supporting stocks. This might be the correction in process now? Once you see the drop happen from the change in Fed policy, don't miss the rally that will go on after that, which will last at least another year. Regarding your last point. Monetary policy, low interest rates, mostly indirectly impacts the economy through changing asset prices. Unless the Fed gives money to you and me, it can't directly influence unemployment.

 

Thanks! That makes sense about the irrational pull back. I try and put money in the market every month no matter what is happening.

[jjamie12]

TPS: A couple of questions for you:

 

1- Why do you want the metric used to be taxes as a % of GDP? Someone posed the question (or maybe they just yelled at you and called you stupid ) As someone noted: It seems like that points to (implicitly) your continuing an expansion of government? Why should the rate of government spending necessarily equal the rate of growth? If you don't believe that, it's hard for me to understand why you would choose that metric over, say, Real Tax Collection (a number I just made up -- tax collections adjusted for inflation, or something like that)?

 

2- As you've noted, sort of: When theory meets practice, counter-cyclical spending turns directly into more and more and more spending always. Not counter-cyclical, but counter-cyclical followed by cyclical, follwed be counter-cyclical. In other words: In practice, your 'solution' to these problems leads to an even bigger problem at some point in the future (the end game of this appears to be getting closer and closer).

 

From an ethical perspective: Are you OK with that?

 

From a political perspective: Aren't you worried about ever-increasing concentrations of government growth and control over the economy? At some point, we're going to cross a line that you will view as 'bad'. What is that line? Isn't it better to just not go down the path at all? Afterall, isn't crossing that line WAY too miserable to even take the chance that we cross it and don't realize it?

[TPS]

TPS: A couple of questions for you:

 

1- Why do you want the metric used to be taxes as a % of GDP? Someone posed the question (or maybe they just yelled at you and called you stupid ) As someone noted: It seems like that points to (implicitly) your continuing an expansion of government? Why should the rate of government spending necessarily equal the rate of growth? If you don't believe that, it's hard for me to understand why you would choose that metric over, say, Real Tax Collection (a number I just made up -- tax collections adjusted for inflation, or something like that)

The question is, what should government's relative share of the economy be? A constant % means government's relative influence is constant over time. Part of the growth equation is driven by population increases, so I would think that you'd want government services to grow to reflect that. If you kept government at fixed $ value, its share would decline over time. That seems inconsistent with providing government services? Even if you allowed government spending to rise with inflation, it would shrink as a share of the economy over time. i think the proper question is "what's the right size" as a share of the economy, 20%? What do we want it to do? That would determine its share of GDP. Though it should be a little flexible to respond to the cyclical nature of the economy.

 

2- As you've noted, sort of: When theory meets practice, counter-cyclical spending turns directly into more and more and more spending always. Not counter-cyclical, but counter-cyclical followed by cyclical, follwed be counter-cyclical. In other words: In practice, your 'solution' to these problems leads to an even bigger problem at some point in the future (the end game of this appears to be getting closer and closer).

 

From an ethical perspective: Are you OK with that?

My solution does not lead to a bigger problem. Look at the historical %s of government spending from the link that provided in this thread. The right counter-cyclical policy was done during the 1990s. Deficits fell, then a surplus was generated. Look at the spending as a % of GDP, it falls too. The wrong policies were done in the 1980s and 200s--supply-side religion. Deficits in every year. Yes, they shrink, but the tax cuts meant that we had structural deficits at full employment--there was no offsetting surpluses when the economy was doing well. Stop the stupid SS policies, and there's no ethical dilemma. Any ethical issue is really related to your next question, the important one...

 

From a political perspective: Aren't you worried about ever-increasing concentrations of government growth and control over the economy? At some point, we're going to cross a line that you will view as 'bad'. What is that line? Isn't it better to just not go down the path at all? Afterall, isn't crossing that line WAY too miserable to even take the chance that we cross it and don't realize it.

The heart of the matter. We have crossed it. Most of the right think we're socialist; we're not, we're fascist. It's control by the rich and powerful; it's control by the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned of in 1961. Once the USSR disintegrated, we needed a new bogeyman to promote the continuation of the security state. Look at the militarization of our police. We set up a police state to spy on US, not the Saudis. I could go on.

 

At this point, you probably think I'm hypocritical on my views of government (and I'm crazy...). On the one hand, I understand the macroeconomic impact of big government on stabilizing the economy and influencing business profits. If you cut the beast in a fragile economy, then unemployment will worsen--those at the bottom will hurt the most. As we move to a more stable situation, that's the time to go after the beast (good news on unemployment and GDP this week).

So, how do you rein in this thing that is controlled by the elite? How do we get government to work for the people? We need a populist revolt. If people don't wake up soon, it will be too late. Will it be violent or peaceful? I don't know.

Thanks for the thoughtful questions rather than the low brow responses that have come to typify PPP (we're all guilty of lowering the level of discourse).

I hope this clarifies, but I'd be happy to expand for you and the NSA...

Edited December 6, 2013 by TPS

[DC Tom]

Thanks for the thoughtful questions rather than the low brow responses that have come to typify PPP

 

In the interest of reversing that disturbing trend: you're an idiot.

[TPS]

In the interest of reversing that disturbing trend: you're an idiot.

i used to think you were an a$$, but I've come to appreciate your style, which means I like you, I truly like you...

[DC Tom]

i used to think you were an a$$, but I've come to appreciate your style, which means I like you, I truly like you...

 

If you stopped thinking I'm an ass, you're definitely an idiot.

[TPS]

If you stopped thinking I'm an ass, you're definitely an idiot.

I think the NSA hacked me. Of course you're an ass. That's the one thing that all of us at PPP can agree on.

[Tiberius]

I think the NSA hacked me. Of course you're an ass. That's the one thing that all of us at PPP can agree on.

 

Oh no! I think KD from CT and Dev/Null pretty much worship Tom

[Tiberius]

The number of Americans filing initial claims for unemployment benefits fell sharply last week, adding to other reports that could foreshadow a better-than-expected jobs report this week.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/12/05/jobless-claims-fall/3877157/

[DC Tom]

http://www.usatoday....s-fall/3877157/

 

If you read past the headline, that's not a very good report.

[Tiberius]

If you read past the headline, that's not a very good report.

 

This part is past the headline you damn fool

 

Applications have dropped in seven of the past eight weeks. Jobless claims are typically a reliable measure of the labor market because they reflect the level of layoffs.

Private payroll processor ADP this week said businesses added a better-than-expected 215,000 jobs in November, the most in a year.

[Rob's House]

Refuted? Hardly. Someone uses nominal revenues to support their case that revenues increased with Bush's tax cuts, and that's what counts as refuted? I guess that's acceptable here to support one's political bias.

Any serious evaluation would look at revenues adjusted for inflation or as a % of GDP. It took six years for real revenues to recover from where they were when Clinton left in 2000, and revenues as a share of GDP never come close to the 2000 level. Using revenues as a % of GDP, Bush's best year for revenue generation was 2001, before he cut taxes. You guys make Goebbels look like an amateur...

Funny how you point out the bias of others, then use 2000 revenues to draw a conclusion about R v D economic results. You're either incredibly stupid, completely ignorant, or you're full of ****. You seem fairly intelligent, and you're obviously informed, so by process of elimination...