Obamanomics

[3rdnlng]

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...

 

So tax rates go down and tax revenues go up. The only problem is we aren't spending enough % of GDP on "programs"? As long as % of GDP is allowed to be given any credit for anything other than a worthless benchmark the strawman will confuse the issue. It's really pretty simple. Keep tax rates low, let the economy flourish and the government receives the money it "needs". TPS will try to make it as complicated as he can and use terms worthy of an economics professor but it's really about not reigning in free markets with regulations and not placing any artificial barriers for an economy to grow.

[DC Tom]

This part is past the headline you damn fool

 

Yeah...and it's not a very good report. Did you not notice the part where jobless claims are still 100k above new payroll?

 

Of course you didn't - that would require the application of some sort of understanding and rational thought.

[TPS]

 

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...

catch up. Read the stuff after this post where I state the best way to compare policies, then see if your panties are still in a twist...

 

 

 

So tax rates go down and tax revenues go up. The only problem is we aren't spending enough % of GDP on "programs"? As long as % of GDP is allowed to be given any credit for anything other than a worthless benchmark the strawman will confuse the issue. It's really pretty simple. Keep tax rates low, let the economy flourish and the government receives the money it "needs". TPS will try to make it as complicated as he can and use terms worthy of an economics professor but it's really about not reigning in free markets with regulations and not placing any artificial barriers for an economy to grow.

just when it looked like you were getting things, you revert back to your ignorance. Look at the %s for revenues, expenditures, and deficits. What decade would you prefer for the US, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s?

[3rdnlng]

catch up. Read the stuff after this post where I state the best way to compare policies, then see if your panties are still in a twist...

 

just when it looked like you were getting things, you revert back to your ignorance. Look at the %s for revenues, expenditures, and deficits. What decade would you prefer for the US, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s?

 

And you continue to see things in a vacuum. You, as a Keynesian try to insist that I endorse that failed theory. Low taxes bring about economic growth thus bringing in higher tax receipts. While there may be an initial drop in revenue with a tax cut, the growth soon overcomes that. I stand for low taxes, limited government and a reduction of economic crippling regulation. This country could enter a long period of economic growth by rolling back the stifling energy regulations and getting rid of ObamaCare. Low energy costs and getting rid of the uncertainty of what will happen under ObamaCare is vital.

[TPS]

 

 

And you continue to see things in a vacuum. You, as a Keynesian try to insist that I endorse that failed theory. Low taxes bring about economic growth thus bringing in higher tax receipts. While there may be an initial drop in revenue with a tax cut, the growth soon overcomes that. I stand for low taxes, limited government and a reduction of economic crippling regulation. This country could enter a long period of economic growth by rolling back the stifling energy regulations and getting rid of ObamaCare. Low energy costs and getting rid of the uncertainty of what will happen under ObamaCare is vital.

you are such a tool. If it's about your ideology, then there's a simple solution to make your view consistent with the % data:

Step 1: admit that SS tax cuts are really Keynesian deficit-increasing expansion methods.

Step 2: in order to fix higher deficits that go along with tax cuts, G spending will have to be reduced as well, which you support.

If spending isn't cut, then you will have admit that you support the higher deficits that go along with your tax cuts. It's that simple.

[Tiberius]

Yeah...and it's not a very good report. Did you not notice the part where jobless claims are still 100k above new payroll?

 

Of course you didn't - that would require the application of some sort of understanding and rational thought.

 

It is a good report at this time recovering from the 2008 disaster, idiot. This isn't 1995.

 

But more good news! http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/12/05/third-quarter-gdp/3877049/ Obamacare goes into operation and economy starts to take off! Coincidence?

 

And you continue to see things in a vacuum. You, as a Keynesian try to insist that I endorse that failed theory. Low taxes bring about economic growth thus bringing in higher tax receipts. While there may be an initial drop in revenue with a tax cut, the growth soon overcomes that. I stand for low taxes, limited government and a reduction of economic crippling regulation. This country could enter a long period of economic growth by rolling back the stifling energy regulations and getting rid of ObamaCare. Low energy costs and getting rid of the uncertainty of what will happen under ObamaCare is vital.

 

Then why didn't Bush's tax cuts lead to a balanced budget? And why did we have an economic crash on his watch if his tax cuts were so great?

[3rdnlng]

you are such a tool. If it's about your ideology, then there's a simple solution to make your view consistent with the % data:

Step 1: admit that SS tax cuts are really Keynesian deficit-increasing expansion methods.

Step 2: in order to fix higher deficits that go along with tax cuts, G spending will have to be reduced as well, which you support.

If spending isn't cut, then you will have admit that you support the higher deficits that go along with your tax cuts. It's that simple.

 

Again, you fail to take into account the economic impact of a lower tax rate. Lower tax rates that stimulate the economy may initially reduce tax receipts but spur economic growth that will soon increase tax receipts. You have thrown up this schit about the need for tax receipts to be a certain % of GDP and it is just a bullschit way of confusing the issue. In every part of this discussion you have endeavored to confuse the issue. Your last bit of bullschit even changed things from tax cuts to SS tax cuts. And you say I'm the ideologue.

 

You also have no idea as to the effect that such things as over regulation and ObamaCare have in creating uncertainty amongst business owners. That uncertainty is stifling the economy, but sitting on your sheltered perch, deeply protected by your academic shield you would have no clue why that is the case.

[Nanker]

Well at least unemployment is down.

That is the rate of unemployed is down.

Of course, the number of Americans actually working is down.

But on the bright side - the number of Americans not participating in the workforce is UP!

It's up dramatically to an historic high of 91.5 million people.

FORWARD!

[IDBillzFan]

But more good news! http://www.usatoday....049/ Obamacare goes into operation and economy starts to take off! Coincidence?

 

Hey, when I start pointing out the utter stupidity of your economic posts, you've hit rock bottom and should probably stop. Please explain to us in your own words how Americans being forced to buy a product not available until the start of Q4 -- a product they are still unable to buy at a website literally incapable of processing payments -- helped the economy in Q3?

[Tiberius]

Hey, when I start pointing out the utter stupidity of your economic posts, you've hit rock bottom and should probably stop. Please explain to us in your own words how Americans being forced to buy a product not available until the start of Q4 -- a product they are still unable to buy at a website literally incapable of processing payments -- helped the economy in Q3?

 

You are a complete idiot. Why would I waste any time trying to explain anything to you? Go turn on your Glenn Beck and sit and clap as he just explains the whole world to you

[IDBillzFan]

You are a complete idiot. Why would I waste any time trying to explain anything to you? Go turn on your Glenn Beck and sit and clap as he just explains the whole world to you

 

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

Like hunting fish in a barrel filled with candy you stole from a baby on Easy Street.

[3rdnlng]

You are a complete idiot. Why would I waste any time trying to explain anything to you? Go turn on your Glenn Beck and sit and clap as he just explains the whole world to you

 

You are a worthless poster and bring nothing to this board. LA refuted your statement rather nicely and you responded with gibberish.

[Tiberius]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

Like hunting fish in a barrel filled with candy you stole from a baby on Easy Street.

 

 

You are a worthless poster and bring nothing to this board. LA refuted your statement rather nicely and you responded with gibberish.

 

Ok, two idiots standing together. I'm not impressed

[3rdnlng]

 

 

 

Ok, two idiots standing together. I'm not impressed

 

More gibberish. Just go away.

[B-Man]

A ‘New Normal’ November jobs report: The long emergency for US workers continues.

 

If the US labor market were back at pre-Great Recession levels, this would have been a pretty decent employment report. Net new jobs were up 203,000 last month with gains broadly based, bringing lower unemployment and underemployment rates. November also saw a nice bump in hours worked, which when combined with an increase in average hourly earnings, points to “a robust advance in wage income,” according to RDQ Economics. The firm also adds, “The evidence from the labor market shows that the momentum in the economy was sustained through the period of the government shutdown.” Good stuff all.

 

But here’s your trouble:

 

1. There are still 1.1 million fewer employed Americans today than right before the recession started, despite a potential labor force that’s 14 million larger. And there are 3.6 million fewer full-time workers than back in 2007.

 

2. The employment rate, the share of Americans with a job, is 58.6% — exactly where it was in November 2009.

 

3. If the labor force participation rate were where it was a year ago, the jobless rate would be 7.9%, not 7% (and 11.3% if the LFPR were at prerecession levels, though closer to 9% if demographics-adjusted).

 

4. More than 4 million Americans remain out of work for 27 weeks or longer.

 

5. Overall, according to the Hamilton Project Jobs Gap calculator, it will take another five years to return to 2007 employment levels even at the improved job creation pace of the past four months.

[Tiberius]

Looking better!

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/06/news/economy/jobs-numbers/

 

 

The unemployment rate fell to 7% for the first time in five years. Some decline was expected because the previous month's figure was distorted by October's government shutdown. But this was better than expected.

It was also an example of unemployment falling for the right reason, more people finding jobs, rather than the wrong reasons, discouraged job seekers giving up their search and no longer being counted as unemployed.

 

That's nice to see. Wish it was even better but its still nice to think the trend is going in the right direction

[DC Tom]

Looking better!

 

http://money.cnn.com...y/jobs-numbers/

 

 

 

 

That's nice to see. Wish it was even better but its still nice to think the trend is going in the right direction

 

"2013 is likely to be the best year for hiring since the 2.5-million gain in 2005."

 

The best year for hiring since the "jobless recovery?" You're unreal.

[TPS]

 

 

Again, you fail to take into account the economic impact of a lower tax rate. Lower tax rates that stimulate the economy may initially reduce tax receipts but spur economic growth that will soon increase tax receipts. You have thrown up this schit about the need for tax receipts to be a certain % of GDP and it is just a bullschit way of confusing the issue. In every part of this discussion you have endeavored to confuse the issue. Your last bit of bullschit even changed things from tax cuts to SS tax cuts. And you say I'm the ideologue.

 

You also have no idea as to the effect that such things as over regulation and ObamaCare have in creating uncertainty amongst business owners. That uncertainty is stifling the economy, but sitting on your sheltered perch, deeply protected by your academic shield you would have no clue why that is the case.

sorry, since I have been talking about supply side, I thought you'd be smart enough to figure out it meant supply side.

Let me make this as simple as possible for you. Anything that increases the deficit is expansionary, all else constant (rising deficits in a recession appear to counter that to you, but you have to look at what's happening to private sector spending at the same time).

This is standard Keynesian theory whether you like it or not. As you admit, revenues fall during the year cuts are made. Here's the math, hope you know some.

Your income is $100,000, and your tax rate in 2003 was cut from 39.6 to 35%. That's a little over a 10% drop in your tax rate (I'll ignore the lower marginal rates to simplify more for you). Taxes paid on $100k: went from $39,600 to $35,000, a savings of $4,600.

But your income went up by 5% to $105,000, so taxes paid at 35% are $36,750. Your taxes paid in nominal $s fell by $39,600-$36,750=$2,850. (Note, I'm even making this look better for your cause by not using 39% of the increased income of $105,000).

 

Next year nominal income goes up by 6.5% due to the bigger deficit caused by the tax cut (and a housing bubble caused by the democrats as you would argue :-). Your income is now $111,825, and your taxes paid are 39,140, about $2,390 more than last year. Of course as income grows, absolute tax revenues go up. Only ideologues would use this argument to support their beliefs. Anyone else would simply point out that we are taking in less tax revenue as a % of income now, equivalent to the change in the tax rate. That is, rather than taking in taxes = 39.6% of income we are now taking in taxes = 35% of total income.

 

If you don't understand this basic point, then you are an ideologue. If you don't understand that the only way to compare different tax structures is to compare them at similar %s of the workforce employed, then you are an ideological hack. I can't change that. Again, the best points of comparison for the impact on revenues from the bush tax cuts is to look at 2 years with equal rates of unemployment.

 

The data are clear. If you want to be honest, you have to admit that lower rates will take in a lower % of revenues. You want to say I'm trying to confuse things with %s, but using %s makes any impact clearer. The difference between the % of revenues and expenditures taken in is equal to the deficit as a % of GDP. This takes away the bias that you and others try to use to support a failed policy belief--supply side economics.

 

Now listen to me 3rd, accepting that lower tax rates take in less revenues in % terms doesn't invalidate your politics. I would like to have lower taxes, but if I don't want bigger deficits, then I have to lower spending as a % of GDP too. If you want to keep using that biased argument that focuses on absolute numbers, then continue with your hackery. As I've said, the real debate should focus on what size we want government to be as a % of GDP, then we can talk about how best to finance it with taxes. If you think the proper size is 15%, then we only need tax rates that will generate 15% (assuming full employment at 5%).

 

Final point, nothing I've said has anything to do with regs or O-care, so start another thread if you want.

[3rdnlng]

sorry, since I have been talking about supply side, I thought you'd be smart enough to figure out it meant supply side.

Let me make this as simple as possible for you. Anything that increases the deficit is expansionary, all else constant (rising deficits in a recession appear to counter that to you, but you have to look at what's happening to private sector spending at the same time).

This is standard Keynesian theory whether you like it or not. As you admit, revenues fall during the year cuts are made. Here's the math, hope you know some.

Your income is $100,000, and your tax rate in 2003 was cut from 39.6 to 35%. That's a little over a 10% drop in your tax rate (I'll ignore the lower marginal rates to simplify more for you). Taxes paid on $100k: went from $39,600 to $35,000, a savings of $4,600.

But your income went up by 5% to $105,000, so taxes paid at 35% are $36,750. Your taxes paid in nominal $s fell by $39,600-$36,750=$2,850. (Note, I'm even making this look better for your cause by not using 39% of the increased income of $105,000).

 

Next year nominal income goes up by 6.5% due to the bigger deficit caused by the tax cut (and a housing bubble caused by the democrats as you would argue :-). Your income is now $111,825, and your taxes paid are 39,140, about $2,390 more than last year. Of course as income grows, absolute tax revenues go up. Only ideologues would use this argument to support their beliefs. Anyone else would simply point out that we are taking in less tax revenue as a % of income now, equivalent to the change in the tax rate. That is, rather than taking in taxes = 39.6% of income we are now taking in taxes = 35% of total income.

 

If you don't understand this basic point, then you are an ideologue. If you don't understand that the only way to compare different tax structures is to compare them at similar %s of the workforce employed, then you are an ideological hack. I can't change that. Again, the best points of comparison for the impact on revenues from the bush tax cuts is to look at 2 years with equal rates of unemployment.

 

The data are clear. If you want to be honest, you have to admit that lower rates will take in a lower % of revenues. You want to say I'm trying to confuse things with %s, but using %s makes any impact clearer. The difference between the % of revenues and expenditures taken in is equal to the deficit as a % of GDP. This takes away the bias that you and others try to use to support a failed policy belief--supply side economics.

 

Now listen to me 3rd, accepting that lower tax rates take in less revenues in % terms doesn't invalidate your politics. I would like to have lower taxes, but if I don't want bigger deficits, then I have to lower spending as a % of GDP too. If you want to keep using that biased argument that focuses on absolute numbers, then continue with your hackery. As I've said, the real debate should focus on what size we want government to be as a % of GDP, then we can talk about how best to finance it with taxes. If you think the proper size is 15%, then we only need tax rates that will generate 15% (assuming full employment at 5%).

 

Final point, nothing I've said has anything to do with regs or O-care, so start another thread if you want.

 

Do you agree that tax cuts tend to boost the economy?

 

Do you agree that a growing economy tends to increase employment?

 

Do you agree that increased employment increases tax revenue?

 

Why should the size of government be decided by a percentage of GDP?

[TPS]

 

 

Do you agree that tax cuts tend to boost the economy?

 

Do you agree that a growing economy tends to increase employment?

 

Do you agree that increased employment increases tax revenue?

 

Why should the size of government be decided by a percentage of GDP?

Ive already said that bigger deficits boost the economy. That can happen from tax cuts or spending increases. Yes to Q1.

Yes to Q2, and yes to Q3. Which is precisely why you need to compare tax changes for similar levels of unemployment. You can only compare different tax regimes at similar stages of the economy!

If you want to argue that lower tax rates caused faster growth, there were only 2 out of 8 years for bush where the growth rate was greater than the long run average. The average growth for bush over his 8 years was worse than any president sinCe ww2, though Obama is on track to break his record.

 

The reason you use a % figure for the size of G is to account for population growth and inflation.