GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/08/06/its-the-spending-stupid/trackback/

  1. It’s been reported that Boehner might have agreed to some tax increases, if he were given more on spending cuts, balanced budget amendment, etc. But Obama torpedoed it.

    Leadership is taking a stand – a constructive one, one that is both necessary and practical – and then persuading or inspiring people to come along. Americans know leaders when they see them. Obama, it ain’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 6, 2011 @ 11:40 am - August 6, 2011

  2. P.S. Although the U.S. has a huge over-spending problem in fact (and not a revenue problem: $2.4 trillion per year should be enough for any country on Earth to get by on), I believe that the downgrade, though inevitable, has been timed and framed at least somewhat for the benefit of the Obama administration.

    First, let’s establish that the ratings agencies do a poor job. Their downgrades tend to be late in coming – if it’s inconvenient for someone in power. As late as 2007Q3, they still were rating some of the worst subprime mortgage paper as AAA, paper that should never have been granted AAA. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis

    Likewise now with Treasury bonds, the downgrade is late in coming. U.S. entitlement programs have tens of trillions unfunded liabilities that are still not accounted for in the official debt numbers, but that would be counted under normal business standards. Given that, Treasuries should have been downgraded much sooner. I would have done it in 2009 after Porkulus, bailouts and Obama’s other spending plans became clear; but certainly the agencies should have done it no later than April 2010, after ObamaCare’s passage.

    So, “why now?” Does someone in power now find this timing convenient? (or think they do) Why, yes. Again, it’s pretty late in coming. And it was dumped out there on a Friday night (the administration’s preferred time for the dumping of inconvenient news). And the full S&P statement has some tricky wording, which lefties will quote to make it sound like revenues and Republicans are the problem. Simply put, the administration wants the downgrade now so that it can pressure the new Super Commission, and through it the Republican leadership, into raising taxes.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 6, 2011 @ 12:13 pm - August 6, 2011

  3. Hi Dan & ILC,
    I find that when you read the excerpts and what S&P said, that it is well nigh impossible to think that this is ONLY a spending issue. Or that this is a merely a question of Dems “owning the downgrade.” Sure they own it–and so do Repubs. I vaguely remember two parties duking it out over the debt ceiling game of chicken (and I don’t think the American people think it is solely Dems–they have plenty of heaping scorn for Repubs in this debacle. It clearly is a political problem as well, AND they both OWN it.

    Further, the fact that the “tricky language” says that:

    Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures the Congress and the Administration might conclude are appropriate.

    But for any plan to be credible, we believe that it would need to secure support from a cross-section of leaders in both political parties.

    suggests VERY strongly that S&P is politely pointing out that any agreement will have to have both tax hikes and spending cuts. So, to think that this is going to be fixed (and spun) solely as a “spending problem to solve” is wishful thinking–I think.

    Comment by Cas — August 6, 2011 @ 2:32 pm - August 6, 2011

  4. suggests VERY strongly that S&P is politely pointing out that any agreement will have to have both tax hikes and spending cuts.

    And how do you get that suggestion?

    Comment by TGC — August 6, 2011 @ 2:39 pm - August 6, 2011

  5. Hi TGC,
    Because it is recognizing the reality that any long term deal is going to have to address spending AND revenue issues, given the ideological views of the the two major parties. And because, though I think there is a solid chance that the Bush tax cuts will get renewed, it will be tricky, because the option is for them to just expire. So, I could see bargaining that allows tax hikes elsewhere, as part of a “efficiency” drive (get rid of tax subsidies, etc).

    Comment by Cas — August 6, 2011 @ 3:26 pm - August 6, 2011

  6. You’ll have to understand, TGC, that Cas is a typical Obama Party member; that is, Cas believes that there is a magical “stash” of money out there and that no spending cuts whatsoever need to be made.

    Perhaps Cas needs a reminder of reality.

    The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America’s billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. It does indeed sound like a “ton of cash” until one considers that the 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America’s billionaires, we’d still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit.

    But how about if we drop it to millionaires?

    In 2008, .3% of tax returns were from filers with taxable incomes over $1 million. Those .3% of filers paid 24% of individual taxes collected by the government in 2008, but it only amounted to about $255 billion. How can we fix our deficit problem by tax increases on millionaires and billionaires? Even if we raise their tax rates to 100%, we only collect $683 billion more in taxes – still leaving a $917 billion (nearly $1 trillion) one year budget deficit.

    And here’s the real kicker:

    After we double tax rates on all Americans with taxable incomes over $18 thousand, we still have a one year 2011 budget deficit of $524 billion.

    By the way, that would be a situation where those making $18k and above were paying 30% of their income (15% x 2), those making $65k and above would be paying 50%, those making $130k and above 56%, those making $200k and above 66%, and those making $350k and above, a full 70%.

    And you would still be half a TRILLION short.

    But again, this is not a rational argument that Cas is trying to make. Cas has stated that Cas’s goals with its economic policies are to reduce American standards of living. Cas is solely driven by Cas’s desire to punish those who have more than Cas does; Cas has openly stated that the primary goal of the government should be to redistribute wealth on the basis of “entitlement”, not on the basis of productivity or performance.

    And, as I told ILC yesterday, Cas will not be negatively affected. Cas does not pay taxes and lives off government handouts and welfare. In Cas’s mind, there is nothing wrong with this; the government is punishing those who make more money than Cas and is taking their wealth to give to Cas.

    Cas is a parasite, and is making excuses for increased parasitism. That is all Cas’s arguments are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 6, 2011 @ 3:59 pm - August 6, 2011

  7. NDT, I actually disagree with that type of revenue analysis because it’s static, i.e. it ignores the dynamic negative effects of higher tax rates and/or collections.

    The confiscation of wealth would yield far less than indicated, because much of it is “paper” wealth: assets that would crash, if they were sold off in large quantities. For example, if the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to be confiscated, and thus sold off fairly rapidly (say over the course of a fiscal year), Microsoft stock would crash and the amount of wealth confiscated would be far smaller than it appears now.

    The government would fare little better in trying to confiscate more of people’s incomes. The higher taxes would be -avoided- by most of its intended targets. (And rightly so. See the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance_and_tax_evasion) So they would collect far less revenue than your hypothetical indicates. And to the extent that the taxes “worked” i.e. did collect more revenue, it would unleash forces of job destruction – since another name for “millionaires” is “small business owners”- which would harm revenue in other ways.

    Bottom line, we don’t have a revenue problem here in the U.S. The government already gets some $2.4 trillion a year in revenue, which is huge. And it is unlikely to get much more than that, no matter how much it taxes. So we’re back to the spending problem; as Dan has told us: “It’s the spending, stupid!”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 6, 2011 @ 7:18 pm - August 6, 2011

  8. It’s been reported that Boehner might have agreed to some tax increases, if he were given more on spending cuts, balanced budget amendment, etc. But Obama torpedoed it.

    The Balanced Budget Amendment again? That was a joke from the start, for two good reason.

    #1: Actually passing it. Get it through the House, the Senate, and get 38 states to ratify it? With the current Congress, you might get lucky and see it killed at the second hurdle. Hell even with a friendly Congress, 38 states is a big ask. You’ve always got the problem that while everyone wants ‘wasteful spending’ cut in other states, they’re far less willing to see similar spending cut in their own. The logistics are daunting and, in my opinion anyway, not worth the effort, because…

    #2: Did you know California has a Balanced Budget Amendment (and a pretty damn strict one at that)? In fact, every state other than Vermont has some form of BBA. It hasn’t stopped a single one of them running up whatever amount of debt they like, because the state legislatures just use accounting tricks to get around their own BBAs and deficit spend regardless. What would stop the federal government doing the same? NOTHING.

    My saying on this is that a Balanced Budget Amendment is unnecessary with a good Congress as no amendment is needed for them spend responsibly, while a Balanced Budget Amendment is meaningless with a bad Congress as no amendment will stop them from spending irresponsibly.

    The bottom line is that the Balanced Budget Amendment was a placebo at best and a poison pill at worst. Holding on to it to the last minute helped no one. You still got a bitter deal and you’re still hardly any closer to an actual balanced budget.

    Comment by Serenity — August 6, 2011 @ 10:54 pm - August 6, 2011

  9. Notice how the welfare addicts scream and cry and try to fight anything at all that would require them to limit spending.

    You don’t pay the bills, Serenity, so it’s no surprise you are fighting anything that might limit the amount of giveaways you can demand.

    And furthermore, your whining about “accounting tricks” is supreme hypocrisy, because you endorse any and all accounting tricks to cover up Obama’s lies.

    The reason you oppose the BBA is because it would break the back of the Obama Party’s giveaway and promises for votes machine. It would prevent you from stealing money from taxpayers and using it to purchase votes, which was the sole purpose of your “stimulus”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 6, 2011 @ 11:01 pm - August 6, 2011

  10. NDT, I actually disagree with that type of revenue analysis because it’s static, i.e. it ignores the dynamic negative effects of higher tax rates and/or collections.

    I totally agree with you, ILC. But I also think that’s the point; the parasite class, aka the Obama Party and its base, could not even pay off their debts for ONE YEAR with a complete doubling of taxes – and

    People like Cas and Serenity are simply delusional. They have been divorced from taxation so long they have no idea of the impact it has. They are both government dependents, so they literally see a cut to government as a cut in the amount of money that they will receive. They have no concept of productivity or providing value because they get money without having to do anything.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 6, 2011 @ 11:21 pm - August 6, 2011

  11. Notice how the welfare addicts scream and cry and try to fight anything at all that would require them to limit spending.

    You don’t pay the bills, Serenity, so it’s no surprise you are fighting anything that might limit the amount of giveaways you can demand.

    Amusing that you’d criticize me for this after I state that the prized Balanced Budget Amendment would ultimately not limit any spending and thus not really hurt me (not that it would anyway, unless it was something the Houses of Parliament were voting on). I’m just irritated at the sheer stupidity of it all, I know exactly what you want.

    Smaller and more limited government, with corresponding spending cuts, a lower tax burden, balanced budgets, a greater focus on individual liberty and states’ rights. I can even sympathize with a lot of it and put myself in your shoes for the sake of argument.

    But even doing all that, the Balanced Budget Amendment still doesn’t work! A Balanced Budget Amendment and a truly balanced budget are not one and the same, the states have already proven

    And furthermore, your whining about “accounting tricks” is supreme hypocrisy, because you endorse any and all accounting tricks to cover up Obama’s lies.

    I’m not whining, I’m stating. Politicians are corrupt, they do dishonest things. Really, that’s like telling you water is wet and the sky is blue. The BBA would not make them honest.

    The reason you oppose the BBA is because it would break the back of the Obama Party’s giveaway and promises for votes machine. It would prevent you from stealing money from taxpayers and using it to purchase votes, which was the sole purpose of your “stimulus”.

    Go ahead and dream if you like. We’ll be waiting here in the real world in case you decide to come back.

    Really, it is amusing to me that you jump to defend anything I attack and attack anything I defend. I end up being able to define you simply by taking sides, giving me my very own attack dog if I so choose.

    Comment by Serenity — August 6, 2011 @ 11:22 pm - August 6, 2011

  12. People like Cas and Serenity are simply delusional.

    I would request that you find and quote mine one of my old posts in a rather sad attempt to prove this. I could do with a good laugh.

    Comment by Serenity — August 6, 2011 @ 11:24 pm - August 6, 2011

  13. NDT,
    So, I argue that any solution to the debt situation now on offer or to be offered in the Legislative Branch will consist of both spending cuts AND tax hikes, because of the ideological makeup of the parties, and what do you do: provide a nice long diatribe about how tax hikes ALONE cannot relieve the debt.

    Please explain to me how what you say even vaguely addresses the observation I made? So, can you explain, why #6 is nothing more than a dressed up a little straw man? Or are you just phoning it in now?

    Comment by Cas — August 7, 2011 @ 12:50 am - August 7, 2011

  14. Amusing that you’d criticize me for this after I state that the prized Balanced Budget Amendment would ultimately not limit any spending and thus not really hurt me (not that it would anyway, unless it was something the Houses of Parliament were voting on). I’m just irritated at the sheer stupidity of it all, I know exactly what you want.

    Worms can doubtless give a wonderful speech on the dangers and drawbacks of ivermectin. But when one realizes that the worms’ preferred option is that they run rampant and drain every last ounce of their host’s energy, that is the true comparison to be made.

    And that’s the situation, Serenity; what you want is unlimited out-of control spending, and that’s why you oppose the balanced-budget amendment. You are an irresponsible and greedy welfare worm, and you are doing your best to block and destroy anything that would in any way cut off your gravy train and end your parasitic existence.

    And speaking of parasites, that brings us to Cas.

    So, I argue that any solution to the debt situation now on offer or to be offered in the Legislative Branch will consist of both spending cuts AND tax hikes, because of the ideological makeup of the parties, and what do you do: provide a nice long diatribe about how tax hikes ALONE cannot relieve the debt.

    Yes. Because you are a liar. You and your Barack Obama Party oppose ANY cuts to government, insist that doing so is murdering Grandma, and state that everything must be tax hikes.

    Your Obama did not put forth on paper one meaningful cut. Not one. Your Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid screamed and cried and whined, just as you did, that any cut would be murdering Grandma. You and your Obama Party repeat the lie that tax hikes are all that is needed, and despite being a party of rampant tax cheats like your leader Charles Rangel, you demand that productive people pay even more in taxes rather than to cut one dime of welfare spending – sorry, “investments” – on drunks and lazy people like yourself.

    What is happening, Cas, is that you are being shamed and humiliated by having revealed that your desire — to double taxes on all Americans — would not even close ONE year’s worth of the budget deficit, much less the DECADES of trillion-dollar deficits that you and your fellow welfare parasites demand.

    Furthermore, you have lost all credibility here with your statements that government exists solely to forcibly redistribute wealth and pay people like yourself who do not work entitlements. You have stated that you want government to punish the wealthy and destroy anyone who has more money than you do. Your stated GOAL, and that of Serenity’s, is to cut the US’s standard of living.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 7, 2011 @ 1:58 am - August 7, 2011

  15. Hey, Pomposity is back! (Though with Cas here, was it ever gone?)

    suggests VERY strongly that S&P is politely pointing out that any agreement will have to have… tax hikes

    No, actually. This is what S&P said:

    **Standard & Poor’s takes no position** on the mix of spending and revenue measures the Congress and the Administration might conclude are appropriate.

    But for any plan to be credible, we believe that it would need to secure support from a cross-section of leaders in both political parties.

    Emphasis added. The second part is likely a mere truism: it is true literally that, until the Republicans win in 2012, no plan can pass (and thus “be credible”) without support from a cross-section of leaders in both parties. Put it this way: if it isn’t a mere truism, then S&P just said that any solution must include leaders of the TEA Party faction of Republicans… which means, no taxes. If you won’t accept that the second part endorses the TEA Party, i.e. if you accept the second part as a mere truism, then the operative part must be the first part. In which case, the quote is one of those cases where the very thing that S&P said, happens to be the very thing that S&P was suggesting. You know, as the Freudians say, sometimes a penis is just a penis.

    But as I predicted:

    lefties will quote [it] to make it sound like revenues and Republicans are the problem

    Thank you Cas, for making me right… yet again :-)

    NDT,
    So, I argue that any solution to the debt situation now on offer or to be offered in the Legislative Branch will consist of both spending cuts AND tax hikes, because of the ideological makeup of the parties, and what do you do: provide a nice long diatribe about how tax hikes ALONE cannot relieve the debt.

    Please explain to me how what you say even vaguely addresses the observation I made?

    I think I can field it. At comment #10, NDT stated that he “totally agree[s]” with my analysis of the likely effect of taxes; thus confirming his underlying/complementary point as being (like mine) that tax hikes cannot solve the situation AT ALL. Not ALONE, but AT ALL.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 2:08 am - August 7, 2011

  16. Hi ILC,
    I make an inference, based on the current state of play. By all means make an alternative case that if the Repubs win it all in 2012, they can do as you suggest–especially if they get at least 60 seats in the Senate as well; otherwise, good luck. So, its a possible case. I will grant you that!

    Even so, will you turn around and grant another possibility, since it is all speculation: what if its deadlocked again ILC, after 2012? Since we are playing what ifs? In that case, good luck on your “spending cuts only approach.” I mean that sincerely! :)

    And if I predict that “righties” will say that it can only be spending cuts and tax hikes are anathema, then do I get to chuckle and say–”how predictable”? I mean, come on, do I need a crystal ball to work out what you and NDT and others are going to say…?

    And finally, ILC, you suggest that just because NDT ideologically supports your tax position, that makes his claim at 10 something other than a straw man, for completely ignoring my claim that there will need to be revenue increases as well? OK, maybe under some other set of argumentative rules, but not rational ones, sorry.

    Comment by Cas — August 7, 2011 @ 3:13 am - August 7, 2011

  17. You’ll have to understand, TGC, that Cas is a typical Obama Party member; that is, Cas believes that there is a magical “stash” of money out there and that no spending cuts whatsoever need to be made.

    Oh I know. From what I’ve seen, the spin is that the S&P is siding with the TEA Party. Ergo, I was wondering where she got the notion that they favor tax increases.

    Comment by TGC — August 7, 2011 @ 3:26 am - August 7, 2011

  18. what if its deadlocked again ILC, after 2012?

    You tell me: are Democrats capable of learning? Are they capable of doing the right thing? I hung out with them (and was one) a long time, which gives me a lot of insight into how they think. Plus I’ve seen your nonsense. So I say no. But, no one knows the future.

    It comes down to this: Either the U.S. will eventually have policies that create conditions for prosperity – whether it is Republicans or Democrats or Martians implementing them – or it will not. If the U.S. does, I’ll see it coming and I’ll profit. Or if it doesn’t (like now), I’ll see *that* coming/happening and I’ll profit. It’s called foresight; look into it. I feel very sorry for our grandkids in the second case and for people suffering unnecessarily, but I kinda win either way.

    if I predict that “righties” will say that it can only be spending cuts and tax hikes are anathema, then do I get to chuckle and say–”how predictable”?

    It depends: (1) have they already telegraphed, to you and everyone, that they oppose tax hikes? and (2) is the government’s deficit problem in fact a spending problem? and (3) in general, do you have problems connecting cause to effect for the making of accurate predictions, such that when one of your predictions comes true, it is something of an achievement? Hints: Yes, yes and yes.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 9:57 am - August 7, 2011

  19. I restate my original proposal; offer tax hikes in the mix, but they must kick in at least six years out (like the Democrats proposed spending cuts), they must kick in only after there have been substantial spending cuts (not cuts in the growth of spending, but actual year-to-year reductions in spending), they may kick in only if there has been substantial regulatory reform, and they may kick in only after three successive years of 3.5% growth in the GDP.

    Perhaps Cas or Serenity would care to explain why this scheme for including tax hikes (or “revenues” as the Orwellian Democrats refer to them) in the mix would meet with any objections.

    Comment by V the K — August 7, 2011 @ 10:37 am - August 7, 2011

  20. Glenn Reynolds floats a tax increase/”revenue” proposal I could also get behind.

    Were I a Republican senator or representative, I would be agitating to repeal the “Eisenhower tax cut” on the movie industry and restore the excise tax. I think I would also look at imposing similar taxes on sales of DVDs, pay-per-view movies, CDs, downloadable music, and related products.

    I’d also look at the tax and accounting treatment of these industries to see if they were taking advantage of any special “loopholes” that could be closed as a means of reducing “tax expenditures.” (Answer: Yes, they are.)

    Tax Hollywood! I love it.

    Comment by V the K — August 7, 2011 @ 10:46 am - August 7, 2011

  21. Perhaps Cas or Serenity would care to explain why this scheme for including tax hikes (or “revenues” as the Orwellian Democrats refer to them) in the mix would meet with any objections.

    a) What are ‘substantial’ spending cuts? Being that you say “year-to-year”, I assume you have a dollar amount in mind or similar?

    b) What is ‘substantial’ regulatory reform? That could mean almost anything.

    c) When is the last time the United States actually saw three successive years of 3.5% growth in GDP? The only figures I could find tracked on a monthly or quarterly basis, not yearly.

    d) Assuming all of the above is met, what tax hikes are on the table and how much revenue would they be projected to generate?

    Comment by Serenity — August 7, 2011 @ 11:26 am - August 7, 2011

  22. Nice evasion, Insipidity. I’ll give the answer to the question you are evading. The leftist objection to putting tax increases in the out years is that they cannot force future Congresses to implement them, which is why the left always demands taxes now, cuts later.

    And, of course, Democrats would object to the triggers, because, under Democrat rules, triggers can only be attached to spending cuts. Tax increases must simply happen.

    Have I illustrated the point for anyone with an IQ above room temperature? (Sorry, Cas, I can’t dumb it down any more than that.)

    Comment by V the K — August 7, 2011 @ 11:46 am - August 7, 2011

  23. Remember, just a few years ago, when the liberals were crowing that they’re better for business than Republicans? I’m waiting for them to prove it.

    Comment by TGC — August 7, 2011 @ 1:10 pm - August 7, 2011

  24. Raising personal tax rates is good politics. Demonizing a small number of citizens, telling the gullible public that the rich have the money works. It is the path to power and privilege for thousands of years. Lenin, Hitler, Obama, Chavez, Castro, Hussein, Johnson, Carter, Pol Pot, Peron, Mao, have used the tactics of demonizing and vilifying the rich to gain access to a privileged lifestyle that would otherwise have been unimaginable for these former peasants and social misfits.

    http://tinyurl.com/3rzxee9

    Here, Mark demonstrates that raising taxes does not raise revenues. Cas should pay attention as it demonstrates what ILC has been saying.

    It’s all about the spending.

    Comment by TGC — August 7, 2011 @ 1:36 pm - August 7, 2011

  25. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah, a Tea Party candidate who replaced a RINO) gave a talk to the Young Americans Foundation (I think it was them) in which he explained that part of the reason we have such a huge debt is because under the current system, politicians can enact new programs (Medicare Part D, ObamaCare) without raising taxes to pay for them. Deficit spending lets Congress get the benefit of buying off constituencies while putting the costs off into the future. Under a BBA, Congress would have to raise taxes every time it enacted a new program. This would be a huge step in the direction of accountability.

    Comment by V the K — August 7, 2011 @ 1:40 pm - August 7, 2011

  26. TGC, good one. Another bit worth knowing:

    The [Bush] tax reduction may have been partially responsible for the spectacular [Bush] growth in federal revenues but a more reasonable explanation would be the housing bubble. Still this is a good example to show students that cutting taxes does not lead to deficits. Revenues increased 40.1%. The problem was spending, not revenues. If Bush had shown the slightest bit of fiscal restrain he would have balanced the budget.

    Forty freakin’ percent growth in federal revenues, after the Bush tax cuts. I knew it was high, but never quite noticed it being that high.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 1:50 pm - August 7, 2011

  27. And:

    24. Does the government collect more taxes as a percent of the GDP when the top rate is raised?

    Answer: Raising the tax rate above 28% is not productive [ed: i.e., has not historically been productive in the U.S.]. Less revenue will be collected, people will engage in tax avoidance behavior, and resources will be misallocated into less productive activities for the sole propose of avoiding the tax man.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 1:56 pm - August 7, 2011

  28. (continued) I think that answers the Laffer Curve question. It will vary by country but for the U.S., the number is 28%.

    Even Sweden found, when they cut taxes (and spending, and did other market and budget reforms), that revenues went up after just a few years.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 1:58 pm - August 7, 2011

  29. Nice evasion, Insipidity. I’ll give the answer to the question you are evading. The leftist objection to putting tax increases in the out years is that they cannot force future Congresses to implement them,

    Pretty much what I expected then.

    V the K: Tell me if you’d agree to this plan.
    Me: I don’t know, could you make it more specific?
    V the K: You are being completely unreasonable! This discussion is over! We’re moving on!

    which is why the left always demands taxes now, cuts later.

    Meanwhile the right demands no tax increases, and… that’s about it really. The current debt ceiling deal says it all, you got no tax increases but you also got practically no spending cuts. Everyone loses!

    And, of course, Democrats would object to the triggers, because, under Democrat rules, triggers can only be attached to spending cuts. Tax increases must simply happen.

    I would note here that your proposal simply inverts this, spending cuts simply happen while tax increases are subject to a stringent trigger, and I still didn’t reject it out of hand.

    Comment by Serenity — August 7, 2011 @ 2:02 pm - August 7, 2011

  30. V, great proposals. But Democrats will never accept them. So the U.S. is going to twist in the wind, until and unless Small Government people (probably Tea Party Republicans) win in 2012.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 2:05 pm - August 7, 2011

  31. Actually, Serenity, the Republicans already put forward not one, but TWO plans to fix the problem — the Ryan budget, which passed the House with bipartisan support, and Cut, Cap, and Balance, which also passed the House with bipartisan support.

    Extremist Senators like Harry Reid and the extremist Barack Obama blocked both of these plans and insisted that there be a) no spending cuts and b) doubling of tax rates.

    As I showed above, doubling tax rates would not even close one year’s worth of Barack Obama’s budget deficits, not to mention the economic damage that would result from Barack Obama’s obsession with increasing the tax rates on working Americans to a minimum of 30% of their income.

    Obamabots like yourself simply have become delusional. Your obsession with taxes is understandable at this point, given your zealous belief that the government exists solely to redistribute wealth to those like yourself who don’t wish to work so that you can have identical standards of living as those who do work. Your Party’s absolute refusal to cut spending and demands for massive tax hikes are also understandable, given that your party leadership doesn’t pay taxes and (illegally) collects welfare benefits.

    You and Cas are faced with the possibility that you might actually have to work for a living, rather than just receiving handouts, and the very real possibility that, given your lack of skills and work ethic, that other people will make more and have more than you do.

    It’s no wonder you’re terrified and sinking farther and farther into crisis.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 7, 2011 @ 2:27 pm - August 7, 2011

  32. Hi Serenity,

    When is the last time the United States actually saw three successive years of 3.5% growth in GDP?

    Under Clinton.
    Hi VK,

    (Sorry, Cas, I can’t dumb it down any more than that.)

    No worries, its the thought that counts.

    As for Serenity’s questions, I think they are valid, but I appreciate your reply. For the very reason you state:

    The leftist objection to putting tax increases in the out years is that they cannot force future Congresses to implement them, which is why the left always demands taxes now, cuts later.

    Rightists object to tax hikes now and spending cuts later for exactly the same political calculation.

    So, the solution could be to tie it all in together. Then if you want tax hikes six years out, then spending cuts come in then as well. I think the incentive might exist for a compromise in that way. Would you go for that VK?

    Comment by Cas — August 7, 2011 @ 3:12 pm - August 7, 2011

  33. Hi ILC,
    Checked out the link to the professor’s class. Boy I would do badly in that class. Maybe he would just think I wasn’t up for it, but I would keep asking questions like–Hey, when you ask the question and answer it this way:

    22. What happened to tax receipts as a percent of GDP from 2003 to 2007 when Bush cut the top rate from 39.6% to 35%? Answer: Tax receipts increased by 2.3% of the GDP or 40.1% in nominal dollars.

    I get the sense that you are not being straight forward with us. I mean, first you look at things in ten year increments, and when we get to 2000, you go all funky on us–I mean, why 2003-2007? Why not 2000-2009, like the other sets? What you say is true, but how does your model explain the FACT that from 2003-2005, tax receipts fell in REAL terms as tax rates fell? Because that Laffer thingy you keep talking about, suggests that result shouldn’t happen, right? So, Prof, how do you explain that analogous result? And when I use your methodology, and calculate the change in tax rates and receipts for the period 2000-2009, like you did for the other yearly groupings (just to be consistent), I get the fabulous result that real Government receipts FELL 17% when tax rates fell, for this period. Wow, I guess we will have to agree that either this approach of your doesn’t appear to hold anymore, or agree that it is way too simplistic to actually explain what it purports to explain, and maybe do some real economic analysis.

    Economic lessons like this one should be in every economic textbook in America.

    Yes indeed. It is a great example of how NOT to use statistics to make an economic case…

    Comment by Cas — August 7, 2011 @ 3:38 pm - August 7, 2011

  34. Since I am not an elected official, it makes zero sense for me to put forth a plan. My point was to demonstrate why conservatives are resistant to tax increases coupled with spending cuts; because history has shown us (1986, 1992) that the tax increases happen and the spending cuts don’t, because Democrats lie and you can’t make deals with liars. `

    Obvioiusly, it flew right over the heads of the dimwitted contributors.

    Comment by V the K — August 7, 2011 @ 3:43 pm - August 7, 2011

  35. It is also why Democrats express open contempt for a Consitituional structure that limits their ability to confiscate wealth for their own benefit.

    Comment by V the K — August 7, 2011 @ 3:47 pm - August 7, 2011

  36. Hi VK,

    because history has shown us (1986, 1992) that the tax increases happen and the spending cuts don’t,

    Would it provide you with any comfort to know that government expenditures–as a % of GDP–fell throughout Clinton’s presidency, from 21.41% in 1993 to 18.2% in 2000? They grew in absolute terms, but slower than for the economy as a whole.

    Comment by Cas — August 7, 2011 @ 3:55 pm - August 7, 2011

  37. Would it provide you with any comfort to know that government expenditures–as a % of GDP–fell throughout once Republicans took control of Congress during Clinton’s presidency

    FIFY

    Comment by V the K — August 7, 2011 @ 3:58 pm - August 7, 2011

  38. Hi VK,
    Actually, Reps didn’t take control till 1994 elections, so, I guess you would agree that claim is wrong, given the actual statistics and all? Right? Its OK, we all know; it was just a slip of the keyboard keys…

    Comment by Cas — August 7, 2011 @ 4:09 pm - August 7, 2011

  39. #33 – Cas, can’t tell if you’re addressing me or the professor. Also you appear to be engaged in your standard Cas-when-cornered tactics of “straw man” and other lies. For example, the growth in tax receipts 2003-5 was over 15%, far in excess of inflation and thus a real growth; and nobody ever claimed about the Laffer Curve whatever warped thing you think they did. (That any tax cut is supposed to result in higher receipts instantaneously? You suffer from so many misconceptions, and then you employ them so badly in what passes as ‘argument’ for you, that one can never be 100% sure.) In short, your comment doesn’t appear to be worth anything. Have fun with yourself! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 4:26 pm - August 7, 2011

  40. The fact is, Under Obama and the Democrat Congress, spending jumped from 21% of GDP (Way too high already) to 25% of GDP, and the Democrats fight tooth and claw against anyone who wants to bring it back down; calling anyone who wants to reduce the size of Government a “terrorist”. Which tends to make one doubt they have any legitimate intent of restraining spending.

    If the Dramacrats want to convince me they are negotiating in good faith, knocking the name calling might be a place to start. Enacting legitimate cuts to domestic discretionary spending would be another confidence builder. And until Dramacrats take some good faith gestures, Republicans have no reason to trust them.

    Comment by V the K — August 7, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - August 7, 2011

  41. Also, ILC, we’re missing the best part.

    And when I use your methodology, and calculate the change in tax rates and receipts for the period 2000-2009, like you did for the other yearly groupings (just to be consistent), I get the fabulous result that real Government receipts FELL 17% when tax rates fell, for this period.

    Which is very entertaining, given two things:

    The economy slid into recession in 2000, which would naturally depress tax revenues in the first place.

    The first of the tax cuts did not take place until 2001, and in fact many of them were deferred.

    The tax law change in 2003 was in fact a moving up of several of these deferrals.

    So Cas is blaming the decline in revenues in 2000, just to show one example, on tax cuts that hadn’t happened yet.

    And the hilarious thing about this is that Cas is breaking Cas’s own rule that the President is not responsible for anything having to do with economics that happens within his term. Cas in fact has stated that all economic impacts within a first term are NOT the result of any decision made by the President, but are solely due to the policies of his predecessor.

    Therefore, Clinton’s tax hikes wrecked the economy and resulted in a decline in tax revenue.

    Now watch as Cas tries to spin away from that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 7, 2011 @ 4:43 pm - August 7, 2011

  42. Here is something to entertain Cas while the adults discuss economics.

    Has it occurred to anyone else that piling taxes on the rich makes us even more vulnerable to large deficits and debt? Here is my analysis, taxes are disproportionately paid by the top quintile of productive citizens. (70% of taxes are paid by the top 20% of earners) The top quintile are also subject to the most fluctuation in income since they are more likely to have income in investments or are business owners. When the economy goes south, their income takes the biggest hit, and since so much of all tax receipts depend on the top quintile doing while, tax collections drop dramatically.

    If our tax base were more evenly spread across the spectrum of income earners… through a consumption tax and flat tax, for example… this make it less vulnerable to fluctuations in the economy, and lead to greater overall stability.

    It is unfortunate that people like High Cas, Insipidity, and the entire Obamacrat party, put class warfare ahead of rational tax policy. It is worse that they hold spending restraint hostage to their demand that the rich be punished further, making our system even more vulnerably to economic fluctuation.

    Comment by V the K — August 7, 2011 @ 6:28 pm - August 7, 2011

  43. V, I agree. The variability works both ways: it wouldn’t take much to get job creation going in this country and raise government revenues with it – i.e., just reverse almost everything Obama has done. The sad irony is, lefties are too dense to know it. But every time I hear someone, even a conservative, talk about a consumption tax, national sales tax, VAT, etc. I cringe, because for the reasons you gave earlier, it would just become “ANOTHER” tax that we never get rid of, and that is misused to justify further growth of government.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 7:07 pm - August 7, 2011

  44. The first of the tax cuts did not take place until 2001, and in fact many of them were deferred. The tax law change in 2003 was in fact a moving up of several of these deferrals.

    Again NDT, I just don’t get why Cas would EMPHASIZE something so hopelessly mistaken, as that there was no growth in real revenue from 2003-5. It’s easy to prove there was. All you have to do is take the nominal revenue difference between 2003 and 2005 – which again, was a big uptick – and discount it by inflation over the two years, which was mild. But, no matter.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 7:22 pm - August 7, 2011

  45. Looks like Europe also knows how to monetize their debt: http://news.yahoo.com/ecb-buy-italian-spanish-bonds-stop-contagion-204828827.html

    To “monetize” debt means, the central bank creates new money from thin air and starts buying up government bonds. It’s an inflationary move. It’s how banana republics get things done. The central bank basically just prints money and gives it to the government(s). It’s a way to f*ck savers – namely prudent people, retirees and successful businesses – in the ass. It dilutes their savings and transfers the purchasing power to the government. It’s a sneaky tax on people who save.

    Every second-semester Econ student learns that it’s bad. Therefore, nobody will SAY Europe is monetizing its debt, just as no one (except folks like me, haha) would say that the Fed monetized Obama’s new debt with its “Quantitative Easing” programs, QE1 and QE2. Typical leftie thinking: if you don’t name the crime – if you employ euphemisms, studiously – then it never happened.

    Know why gold hit a record high of $1697 a couple hours ago? Partly the S&P downgrade, but the Big Picture is that the U.S., Japan and Europe are all turning their currencies into trash. The one piece of good news for Europe, is that Italy seems serious about austerity. If they are, their economy will be stronger than ours, in 3-5 years.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 7:56 pm - August 7, 2011

  46. I’ll tell you why I like a consumption tax, ILC. First of all, it’s fair because it brings in revenue from people who evade the income tax. Second, and this is why I oppose a VAT, a point-of-sale consumption tax is visible. If you see on an itemized receipt that every time you buy a Big Mac you’re buying the welfare state a large order of fries, you have to think about the Government taking your money. How much harder would it be to grow Government if every time a politician promised you health care or some other benefit, there was a specific tax increase attached to it

    Comment by V the K — August 7, 2011 @ 8:17 pm - August 7, 2011

  47. Hi ILC and NDT,
    I hope you don’t mind me pointing this out, but you appear to be arguing at cross purposes. After all–

    The economy slid into recession in 2000, which would naturally depress tax revenues in the first place.
    The first of the tax cuts did not take place until 2001, and in fact many of them were deferred.
    The tax law change in 2003 was in fact a moving up of several of these deferrals.

    That would suggest that revenues were already depressed in 2001 and 2002, because of the recession. And the period 2003-2005 is a fair test, because those tax provisions were throbbing away inside the economy’s life lines through much of the period.

    So, what is ILC’s reply?

    For example, the growth in tax receipts 2003-5 was over 15%, far in excess of inflation and thus a real growth; and nobody ever claimed about the Laffer Curve whatever warped thing you think they did. (That any tax cut is supposed to result in higher receipts instantaneously?

    So, ILC thinks that its enough to ignore the initial great drop in tax receipts from 2001 and 2002 levels and count only the increase after 2003. NDT, was there a recession in 2002-2003 that we are unaware of that would explain this large fall in receipts? Actually, GDP was positive. So, to claim victory, ILC, ( for receipts amounts to be collected ahead of the inflation level) on the basis of ignoring the previous year’s receipt levels, feels misleading, at best. Actual receipts didn’t get back to the recession addled (and that is from the horse’s, I mean, NDT’s mouth at #41) period of 2001 in real terms until, wait for it–2006. By all means, make the claim, but only in ILC’s universe are these numbers to be PROUD of….

    By the way–the Laffer Curve position of supply siders is that a cut in tax rates will lead to an ABSOLUTELY higher level of tax receipts (as long as the economy is on the right side of the curve). 2003-2005 showed this was not the case. You still have yet to prove your point, ILC.

    And yes, ILC, I do have fun with myself! ;)

    Comment by Cas — August 7, 2011 @ 9:25 pm - August 7, 2011

  48. VK,
    I love teletubbies; thank you.

    So, are we willing to acknowledge that Clinton didn’t need Repubs to start the process of reducing government spending (as a % of GDP)–you know, for the 1993 and 1994 fiscal years?

    As for your plan, I have a question or two? First, when you say that “(70% of taxes are paid by the top 20% of earners” I just want to be clear on what taxes we are talking about here. Are talking about ALL taxes– you know, income tax, sales tax, FICA, other taxes; or, is it just income taxes? Second, I would point out that the majority of income in this economy is actually owned by the top 20%. So, it does make sense for them to pay most of the taxes. I guess you dislike the progressive structure of taxation, but again, that top 20% gets a lot back in the form of subsidies and tax breaks anyway…

    As for your point about stability of receipts, I think that it is definitely worth thinking about, so I will do that. The one thing I do notice is that receipts fell dramatically after the 2008 recession hit. I think it would be interesting to look at your flat tax idea, but do so in the context of getting rid of all of the subsidies and tax breaks. If it didn’t bring in enough revenue, I would consider some minor progressive elements. So, I am not signing on, but I would be interested to chew on it more in conversation to see what the fleshed out idea looked like.

    Comment by Cas — August 7, 2011 @ 9:46 pm - August 7, 2011

  49. I hope you don’t mind me pointing this out, but you appear to be arguing at cross purposes.

    Actually, we aren’t, silly child; we’re just pointing out your utter stupidity in claiming that tax cuts that weren’t passed until 2001 and did not become fully effective until 2003 were the cause of revenue drops in 2000.

    You, of course, are unwilling to admit that you were wrong, so you start spinning your elaborate web of lies to insist that no, you’re never wrong, that we’re just too stupid to understand you.

    You know, like you hypocritically accused ILC of doing yesterday.

    Projection, Cas. You are a welfare addict who blames others for your problems. You cannot comprehend that the reason you cannot compete in a capitalist society is that you are lazy, ignorant, and indolent; hence, your desperate vendetta and insistence that government’s sole purpose is to redistribute wealth, your absolute hatred for and demand for policies to destroy anyone with more than you, and your insane demand that money be handed out, not based on productivity and performance, but on “entitlement”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 7, 2011 @ 10:32 pm - August 7, 2011

  50. that top 20% gets a lot back in the form of subsidies and tax breaks anyway…

    No, that top 20% makes it possible for a large segment of society that contributes nothing and produces nothing to receive welfare, health care, subsidized housing, food stamps, subsidized education, and a massive array of other benefits.

    Progressive taxation punishes people who made good choices in life to reward people who made bad choices in life.

    Comment by V the K — August 7, 2011 @ 11:03 pm - August 7, 2011

  51. and count only the increase after 2003

    No Cas, it was you who did that. You, Cas, said this (with great emphasis in the original):

    the FACT that from 2003-2005, tax receipts fell in REAL terms as tax rates fell

    Your quote. YOU made a claim about 2003-5. Go check your original. I merely answered your claim, by pointing out its incorrectness. Tax receipts, both nominal and real, increased from 2003-5.

    ignore the initial great [sic] drop in tax receipts from 2001

    Oh, is that what you’re on about? Wow Cas, how stupid can you be? Let me try to explain it in terms simple enough even for you to understand. I’ll use a simple analogy. Maybe that way, the words will be small enough for you.

    Say you run a store, and the neighborhood killer is making you pay protection. When he comes to collect it from you, you pay him right away because he has the power to force you. Now years go by. You’re used to his demands, which have grown over the years and kept you from growing your business (or even made you shrink it). One day he collects less from you. If you even notice at first, do you trust it to last? Do you even remember what your plans were, years ago when you were younger, that you had to shelve? No, you carry out the rut you’re business is in, almost like you’re in a bit of shock from the years of abuse. It is some time before you expand your business.

    In bigger words: the lag in the effects of tax increases vs. tax decreases is variable, and generally assymmetric with the decreases tending to experience somewhat longer or slower lags.

    I have never thought or suggested otherwise. Only in your imagination, your self-created world of straw people where you play alone, could I be connected with some sort of claim that the Bush tax cuts raised (and/or should have raised) federal revenues within (say) weeks or days of their being in effect.

    No, human activity takes time, and the changing of human habits and plans and businesses takes even more time – though less so when you’re being forced, as on the tax-increase side of things i.e. the government’s ability to take your money effective immediately.

    That really means it takes some time to re-grow the tax base in response to tax cuts. ANY. cuts. from. ANY. level. on. EITHER. side. of. the. Laffer. curve.

    There, have I explained it clearly enough, even for you to get?

    Really, I expect you still won’t get it. I’m explaining it for the benefit of the others. They already understand how dishonest and/or stupid your thoughts can be. But I’m glad to explain the details of this issue or that, for their benefit.

    NDT, was there a recession in 2002-2003 that we are unaware of that would explain this large fall in receipts?

    As a matter of fact, the stock market, real estate markets and job markets were all recovering – remember the endless groaning about the “jobless recovery”? – so yes, receipts would have remained depressed for a couple years after the Clinton recession ended officially.

    In fact, that’s true of every recession on record. And the point is rather to my advantage. And yet, I don’t hide behind it. Also, I don’t know exactly when all of the Bush tax cuts took effect: if it was some pieces in 2001, some in 2002, or some in 2003. NDT has suggested, and I find it possible until proven otherwise, that some pieces actually didn’t take effect until 2003. That point is also to my advantage. And yet, I don’t hide behind it either. Rather, I rest on the fact that that the lag in the effects of tax increases vs. tax decreases is naturally variable and assymmetric: that it takes some amount of time to re-grow the tax base, for the desired revenue-increasing effect, in response to tax cuts. ANY. cuts. from. ANY. level. on. EITHER. side. of. the. Laffer. curve.

    Really Cas, you making such a nutty ass of yourself – thank you for entertaining us! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 11:03 pm - August 7, 2011

  52. the Laffer Curve position of supply siders is that a cut in tax rates will lead to an ABSOLUTELY [sic; really meaning immediate? instantaneous?] higher level of tax receipts (as long as the economy is on the right side of the curve).

    Again, where have I ever remotely suggested that?

    2003-2005 showed this was not the case.

    There you go again, Cas. No, no, no. You are exactly and totally wrong on the facts: 2003-5 was a time when revenues were growing (both in real and nominal terms). 2003-5 showed that the Laffer Curve works, and that America had been (and perhaps still is) on the wrong side of it for tax increases to work.

    You still have yet to prove your point, ILC.

    Folks, that’s the sound of the ass braying, LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 11:14 pm - August 7, 2011

  53. Actually, let me rephrase that last, as follows. I hereby assert (as Cas did; sauce for the gander now!) that my point was proven long ago, and Cas’ continued braying on the subject has no value.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 11:35 pm - August 7, 2011

  54. Yet another point to my advantage: The lag could arise administratively. Since federal income and capital gains taxes are paid in April of the year following the taxable activity: even if a tax cut did cause instant growth in activity (the tax base) in the first year it had effect – say in 2003 – (and again, I wouldn’t claim it does so quickly) – from administrative causes alone, the first of the increased revenue could not possibly appear before 2004.

    Maybe you have to be a taxpayer, to know that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2011 @ 11:46 pm - August 7, 2011

  55. Hi ILC,
    Golly gosh!

    Your quote. YOU made a claim about 2003-5. Go check your original. I merely answered your claim, by pointing out its incorrectness. Tax receipts, both nominal and real, increased from 2003-5.

    So, ILC, you get to have your cake and eat it to–you go all literal on me (good for you), and when I point out the precipitous drop from 2001 and 2002 in response to your literalness, as the economy is improving, by the way, you argue that receipts were lower because of a) lingering effects after the recession of 2001, and b) variabilituy and asymmetry of economic activity.

    Let us take those two points. First point: OK, so we have a jobless recovery, and GDP is still going up, and we have this precipitous decline in revenues in 2003. Hmm. So, why do revenues drop in 2003 and subsequently, from 2002, ILC? After all, are you going to argue that it took until 2006 to get over the recession of 2001, and that there was some recessional variability and asymmetry in the economy to cause this decline, two-five years after the recession? Yep, that the effects of a recession two to five years previously, all right, and not lower tax receipts caused by lower tax rates.

    I doubt it. Out of curiosity, you appear to understand what a Laffer Curve is, in a different way to mainstream supply siders or most other economists for that matter. What do you actually understand a Laffer Curve to be and what actual impact does it have (if my definition of its impact that you quoted is not to your liking, could you please explain what is to your liking)?

    Second, after all–lags are asymmetric and variable. So, for anything that does not exactly follow as your belief system suggests it does, you can dismiss it as due to “variable and asymmetric time lags.” Right. So, there appears to be no way to actually disprove what you believe to be true, ILC. As I said before, you appear to hold a non-falsifiable position, because any evidence that does not fit your model is due to unspecified variable and asymmetric lags. If you can think of a way to falsify your position, please let me know, but it is completely absent from this discussion. I understand your position, ILC, I do.

    It is not an economic position, ILC. It is a religious position…

    Comment by Cas — August 8, 2011 @ 12:20 am - August 8, 2011

  56. As I my mind spontaneously recalls more facts, it’s even more clear how completely right I am.

    Above, I make a point about the year-long administrative lag in U.S. tax collections. It also applies to recessions. In other words, if year Y was the trough of economic activity, then year **Z** (not year Y) should be the revenue trough.

    Now let’s look at the facts as they unfolded.
    - 1990s: Clinton leads us into a fake “bubble” economy, the dot-com boom.
    - 2000: The bubble bursts. The Clinton stock market crash – dot-com bomb.
    - 2001: Starting early in the year (just as Bush took office), the Clinton recession. Continued through the year. The first part of Bush tax cuts may have had some effect (though I don’t claim for sure that they would, so quickly)… but 9-11 further disrupts the economy, that September. This was the “trough year” for real economic activity.
    - 2002: Recovery underway, but from a deep trough. Unemployment (a lagging indicator) still rising, thus the income tax base still declining. A possible “trough year” for **taxable** economic activity.
    - 2003: Second part of the Bush tax cuts kick in.

    From all that… I predict that the trough year for revenue collection SHOULD be 2002 (based on having 2001 as the “trough year” of economic activity), or maybe 2003 (if in fact, 2002 was the trough year of taxable activity). In other words, if Laffer theory is correct, and given the administrative and other facts, revenue SHOULD rise no earlier than 2003, and perhaps in 2003.

    Golly, I wonder if it all turned out just like that?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 12:29 am - August 8, 2011

  57. P.S. I’ve also remembered that income taxes are withheld in the current year, BUT,
    - The employee can choose ‘less withholding’. In 2001-2002, I knew people who did. They would pay the full amount only later, with their tax return.
    - Capital gains are generally not withheld and often not paid, until the following year.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 1:43 am - August 8, 2011

  58. why do revenues drop in 2003 and subsequently

    They don’t. More braying! You are completely, factually wrong on that, Cas. Revenues RISE in 2003 and subsequently.

    I’ve said before that it is amazing to watch the “denial” element in your mental process; amazing to watch, in real time, as it actively rejects basic facts and ‘perseverates’ in wrongness.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 1:46 am - August 8, 2011

  59. In other news – gold at $1710 right now. Up nearly $50 in Sunday-night trading.

    Thanks, Obama! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 1:53 am - August 8, 2011

  60. Hi ILC,
    Thanks for the reply. I still don’t know what you believe concerning the Laffer Curve, so, I cannot comment on that aspect of things.

    However, according to what you say, 2002 or 2003 should be the height of tax receipt badness, since that is the major impact of the recession. But receipts in 2002 are higher for any time until 2006. That doesn’t fit the narrative you present in your comment. OK, unemployment reached a peak in 2002, dipped, rose slightly, and finally started its sustained fall in 2003. So, even with your memory, it doesn’t explain why receipts didn’t rise in 2004 and 2005, when U/E was lower than it was in 2002. Even with your lag, it doesn’t come close to explaining THREE years of lower receipts, given 2002′s receipt performance. And remember, marginal rates went down in 2001. I know that NDT asserted that some of the tax cuts did not take effect until later (I think he is referring to estate tax cuts). But the major part of the tax cuts (cuts in marginal rates) were in immediate effect. I have looked for a breakdown of when the different parts of Bush’s tax cuts came into effect, but I haven’t found anything definitive, apart from what I said. The information I found does not appear to support your take on things. So, I remain unconvinced.

    Comment by Cas — August 8, 2011 @ 2:02 am - August 8, 2011

  61. Extremist Senators like Harry Reid and the extremist Barack Obama blocked both of these plans and insisted that there be a) no spending cuts and b) doubling of tax rates.

    Whoa, whoa. Wait, what?

    Both of them openly endorsed plans that called for spending cuts (it took me seconds to find this with Obama quoted as saying “We both want spending cuts. We both want to make sure that we are not wasting taxpayer dollars”, I also found similar for Reid), and ‘doubling of tax rates’? In what sense? Doubling taxes from 15% of GDP to 30% of GDP? No-one anywhere in Congress called for a plan even remotely like that. Or maybe doubling of some other, more specific tax? If so, what tax?

    Seriously NDT, I try not responding to you but when you goad me with transparent lies like this it’s hard to ignore you.

    Comment by Serenity — August 8, 2011 @ 2:13 am - August 8, 2011

  62. Obama quoted as saying “We both want spending cuts.

    Obama says a lot of things. He can also be quoted as saying he had no intention of taking over General Motors, then he did. He can be quoted as saying he would have a net reduction in Federal Spending. It has increased 25% on his watch. Obama can be quoted as saying he would provide regulatory relief to business. In fact, his financial, health care, and energy regulations are strangling businesses.

    You are a fool if you judge a politician by his words and not his actions.

    Comment by V the K — August 8, 2011 @ 6:48 am - August 8, 2011

  63. You are a fool if you judge a politician by his words and not his actions.

    Well to judge anyone by their actions.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 8, 2011 @ 8:58 am - August 8, 2011

  64. Wow! This is real adventure in root canal repair without pain killers.

    Cas and Serenity have come to defend taxing the rich, not embalm them. They are specialists at leeching only enough blood to keep the donor from croaking.

    ILC and company are all talking about getting our fiscal house in order. They would rework entitlements, which clearly means closing entitlement “loopholes” and making “entitlees” pay more from their own pockets.

    Cas and Serenity see this as a tax on the poor, since all entitlees are genuinely entitled and are therefore innocent recipients of transferred wealth.

    Cas and Serenity see tax “loopholes” for the wealthy as pernicious, but entitlement “loopholes” for entitlees being pernicious only in the case that some rich guy is getting them.

    ILC and others actually have a soft spot in their hearts for rich guys and believe that their spending, investing, and savings play a positive role in the economy.

    Cas and Serenity see rich guys as over consumers who chew up the planet and spit out global warming and cuddly little dead polar bear cubs.

    Standard and Poors says that Congress (both houses) and the President have to work together on the mission of getting the US back to AAA. Cas and Serenity see this as calling for tax hikes, since the Democrats stand for tax hikes and nothing else. They firmly believe in political stasis. They are much like the Loyalists during the American Revolution.

    So, the back and forth goes on and on with ILC, et. al. presenting an alternative market approach and Cas and Serenity doggedly sticking to the talking points, what Obama has muttered as evidence of holy writ and demanding that Progressivism works as an engine for prosperity if you are flexible in your understanding of prosperity.

    You can read the above comments and find more weasel holes than the tax code has loopholes.

    Boiled down to its simplest, Cas and Serenity are basically anti-capitalist and dedicated egalitarians. ILC, et. al. are capitalists and anti-socialists. There is no disagreement possible since there is no agreement possible. Cas and Serenity come here to talk past us and the responses they get in return are not internalized, but treated as tangent threads to be pulled in their never-ending, directionless “conversation.”

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 8, 2011 @ 9:39 am - August 8, 2011

  65. I still don’t know what you believe concerning the Laffer Curve

    Well, thank you. That is a step down from just a few comments earlier, where you invent what (you think I should) believe about the LC.

    But receipts in 2002 are higher for any time until 2006.

    Again that’s just false. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

    Receipts exceeded 2002 nominally in 2004, and inflation-adjusted in 2005. You’re beginning to worry me. Your insistence on an easily demonstrated anti-fact is deranged.

    It is not an economic position, ILC. It is a religious position…

    You’re quite correct, except you’ve mistaken the party.

    I remain unconvinced.

    Of course. It doesn’t signify because as explained previously, I long ago stopped writing for you. (I may write *with* you i.e. using you, but not for you.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 10:37 am - August 8, 2011

  66. Both of them openly endorsed plans that called for spending cuts (it took me seconds to find this with Obama quoted as saying “We both want spending cuts.

    Nope. As the CBO said, speeches do not equal plans. You lied again, Pomposity, and your lies have been thrown back in your face. Your Obama and your Reid screamed and cried and whined and blocked spending cuts and demanded doubling taxes, and it was only when Republicans held firm that your little tantrum children had to give in.

    By the way, the doubling comes from what I cited above, which is showing how that the Obama delusion that spending need not be cut and that we only need to raise taxes would not even close the gap for one YEAR with a doubling of rates.

    That’s math, Serenity. You are too infantile, stupid, and lazy to understand math, which is likely why you are on welfare, just like your friend Cas. And that is why the only thing you can do is scream and whine and cry and demand that society pay you equally to those who do work and do provide value to society.

    Lazy, worthless parasite. That’s all you are, Serenity.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2011 @ 10:52 am - August 8, 2011

  67. why receipts didn’t rise in 2004 and 2005, when U/E was lower than it was in 2002

    But again… receipts *did* rise in 2004 and 2005. And actually, the peak of unemployment was in *June 2003* – remember, like tax receipts it is a lagging indicator – so no, I seriously doubt that unemployment was much lower on average in 2004 than it was in 2002.

    But let me make something else clear. I do not defend Bush’s economic record. Bush did a lot of things wrong, except the tax cuts. From the beginning of his administration, he increased non-defense, domestic spending. That dragged on the economy (just as it does for Obama). He passed a costly new entitlement. That dragged on the economy (just as for Obama). He over-regulated (Sarbox). That dragged on the economy (just as for Obama). He went happily along with a Fed chairman’s excessively low interest rates. That dragged on the economy, by encouraging bad loans / inefficient use of resources (just as for Obama).

    Tax cuts were just about the only thing Bush did right, in economic policy. The fact that they produced higher revenues within 2 years of taking effect is, then, all the greater evidence in favor of the Laffer Curve and the fact that the U.S. was (and possibly might still be) on the anti-tax side of it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 11:05 am - August 8, 2011

  68. (i.e., that they produced higher revenues in the face of so many economic obstacles – including several negative policy components)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 11:09 am - August 8, 2011

  69. Hi ILC,

    Again that’s just false. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

    Receipts exceeded 2002 nominally in 2004, and inflation-adjusted in 2005. You’re beginning to worry me. Your insistence on an easily demonstrated anti-fact is deranged.

    You are right. I should have said 2001. The larger point remains unchanged.

    But again… receipts *did* rise in 2004 and 2005. And actually, the peak of unemployment was in *June 2003* – remember, like tax receipts it is a lagging indicator – so no, I seriously doubt that unemployment was much lower on average in 2004 than it was in 2002.

    Well, it is definitely lower given the peak of 2003. And in 2005, it is noticeably lower; and so, this does not support your contention, given real receipts are still lower than they were in then in 2001. Sorry, ILC, still not feeling it.

    I would also point out that GDP rates were at 4% for 2004, and 3% for 2005. Your case has more merit for the period 2002 and 2003, since GDP was under 2%. But your U/E argument looks weak against actual economy wide performance following the tax cuts. After all, they were stimulative. Receipts rose, but one would expect them to rebound and pass 2001 levels in 2004, on the argument that you present, I think. And that didn’t happen until 2006. That is a hole that your argument doesn’t explain.

    Well, thank you. That is a step down from just a few comments earlier, where you invent what (you think I should) believe about the LC.

    Your welcome. No. I just assumed you thought about Laffer Curves the way that most economists do. When that turned out not to be the case, I asked you to explain your view. So, again I entreat you to share what you believe concerning what the Laffer Curve actually is and and its operational or testable prediction.

    Also,

    That dragged on the economy, by encouraging bad loans / inefficient use of resources

    I think that is an unusual choice of words, as it denotes “slowed down.” And GDP growth for the period in question doesn’t support that claim. I suspect that “mis-allocate” is a better word, as this is consistent with the views you hold, concerning over-investment, as to the causes of the 2007-8 bubble burst.

    Comment by Cas — August 8, 2011 @ 1:26 pm - August 8, 2011

  70. And this is where Cas’s typical argument style blows up in its face.

    But your U/E argument looks weak against actual economy wide performance following the tax cuts.

    Really, Cas? Want to compare unemployment rates before and after your “stimulus” passed?

    Now remember, Cas, you have to follow the same rules for your “stimulus” that you do for tax cuts.

    1) The unemployment rate has to fall IMMEDIATELY or it’s a failure.

    2) GDP can never decline again regardless of distance from the “stimulus” or it’s a failure

    3) If unemployment rises above the level when the “stimulus” was put in place, it’s a failure.

    Now watch how fast Cas insists that you can’t judge Cas’s “stimulus” by the same rules it put on tax cuts, that we have to wait for “stimulative” effect, that unemployment isn’t a valid indicator, that GDP activity is not a valid indicator, etc., etc., and so forth.

    And wait for the best one: Cas is going to scream and cry that Obama can’t be held accountable because Obama “inherited a recession” and Obama had “shocks to the system”.

    Well, guess what; Bush inherited a recession and had 9/11.

    Once you corner liberals like Cas, welfare addicts like Cas, you realize that they don’t really have an argument. They have rationalizations they’ve made for years about why they’re entitled to steal from others. Cas has no intellectual thought or capability, because Cas is unable to think beyond the preprogrammed liberal ideology of “government spending good, lower taxes bad” in its welfare-addict brain.

    That’s the other thing we have to realize here. We are dealing with people like Cas and Serenity who have been programmed since birth to see the government as the source of all wealth and growth. They literally are incapable of acknowledging the existence of government waste or of a negative government effect on the economy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2011 @ 2:44 pm - August 8, 2011

  71. Hi NDT,
    For the sake of brevity, I just point out that your argument doesn’t follow from the conversation I am having with ILC. We are talking about tax receipt levels and possible causality that led to these levels. You want to argue a much different point about the general economy. There isn’t much more to say, I am afraid.

    Comment by Cas — August 8, 2011 @ 2:51 pm - August 8, 2011

  72. your argument doesn’t follow from the conversation I am having with ILC.

    Well, excuse the rest of us, please.

    Shall we check in now and then or is this a private conversation?

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 8, 2011 @ 3:26 pm - August 8, 2011

  73. Say, NDT, did you notice that hi-jacked threads are both limp and rigid? How can you possibly knit a tea cozy using such materials whilst keeping your correction selection under control?

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 8, 2011 @ 3:30 pm - August 8, 2011

  74. You are right…. [but] the larger point remains unchanged.

    Translation: Cas not to be moved by facts.

    I should have said 2001…
    …real receipts are still lower than they were in then in 2001…

    No it won’t do, Cas. Basing it on 2001 makes it even worse for you. Again: tax receipts, like unemployment, are a very **LAGGING** indicator. 2001 receipts were high (as was 2001 employment) because the recession had only just begun; they were starting from a historically high level, the tail end of the dot-com boom.

    Really Cas, this isn’t difficult – if you decide to be rational. And you won’t. It’s clear that you are unmoved by evidence. Your attachment to Keynesianism is a matter of religious faith.

    one would expect them to rebound and pass 2001 levels in 2004

    No, one wouldn’t. You’re just making up crap now, so you can preserve your religious faith. Like this:

    I just assumed you thought about Laffer Curves the way that most economists do.

    Kindly present a link to the broad and ideologically unbiased survey of economists, where a clear majority of them indicate their belief that that re-growing a country’s tax base takes no time at all and that the base-growing effects of tax cuts should therefore be instantaneous, or virtually so.

    You won’t be able to, because once more, you are bullsh*tting to desperately cover your mistake and preserve your religious faith.

    As for this:

    I think that is an unusual choice of words, as it denotes “slowed down.” And GDP growth for the period in question doesn’t support that claim. I suspect that “mis-allocate” is a better word

    Why would mis-allocation of resources be a bad thing? I.e., why would the word have the element “mis-” (bad) in it? BECAUSE IT DRAGS ON THE REAL ECONOMY.

    I’ve already explained to you, several times, that GDP is not the real economy i.e. real production and trade; GDP can, and for us it usually does, include much economic activity which is un-economic and sustained only by artificial “stimulus”; that your notion of “stimulus” (i.e. spending, borrowing and money-printing) tends to produce little beyond such faux activity (i.e., un-economic activity which cannot be sustained except by artificial “stimulus”); etc. Again, just as you’ve shown today that facts don’t move you, Cas, it’s clear that logic does not move you either.

    I’m in a position to go farther: Truth does not move you. You’ve shown in previous discussions that the very goal of economic policy – which is (or should be) to create prosperity – is something you ignore or even look down on; that you are perfectly aware that your policy set leads nations to penury, and you don’t mind. For that reason alone, you will never get the “big picture” right and no one should listen to you – even if you may be occasionally right on some small point or other, as in this thread you were NOT.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 3:36 pm - August 8, 2011

  75. Oh, and this gets even better.

    And GDP growth for the period in question doesn’t support that claim. I suspect that “mis-allocate” is a better word, as this is consistent with the views you hold, concerning over-investment, as to the causes of the 2007-8 bubble burst.

    So Cas is claiming that GDP growth, tax revenues, and unemployment rates don’t count during a “bubble”.

    But then Cas quotes and tries to use GDP growth, tax revenues, and unemployment rates from 1996 – 2001 — at the expansion, height, and burst of the dot.com bubble.

    So Cas’s own evaluation collapses in on itself if the same rules Cas applies to other arguments are applied to it.

    And ILC, you nailed it. Cas’s arguments are based on Cas’s religious faith in a perverted version of Keynesianism, not in facts, logic, or truth. In Cas’s world, all facts are irrelevant unless they support Cas’s argument.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2011 @ 3:57 pm - August 8, 2011

  76. P.S. The essence of the neo-Keynesians’ approach to economics is this:
    - Borrow-and-spend, as a payoff to government clients and as a way to artificially inflate the GDP statistics.
    - Print-and-spend, as a payoff to government clients and as a way to artificially inflate the GDP statistics.

    All that matters, to them, is inflating the GDP statistics. Either they wouldn’t know real national prosperity if it hit them over the head with a 2×4 or, as in the case of Cas, they actually don’t care for it.

    The list of things that do not matter to them is impressive:
    - The fact that being in debt is the mathematical opposite of being wealthy, does not matter.
    - The fact that borrowing consumes the nation’s capital stock does not matter.
    - The fact that money printing destroys the value of savings, as well as the incentive to save or form capital in the first place, does not matter.
    - The fact that all of the above drive the nation to penury – or as Cas put it charmingly in another thread, “it gets to have a cut in its standard of living” – does not matter.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 3:58 pm - August 8, 2011

  77. Cas quotes and tries to use GDP growth, tax revenues, and unemployment rates from 1996 – 2001 — at the expansion, height, and burst of the dot.com bubble.

    Precisely.

    One of the great bubbles of history bursts – and in its wake, the Democrats and Bush together and unwisely saddle the country with bad neo-Keynesian policies – and the one positive element, namely tax cuts, didn’t take full effect until 2003/4 – and Cas tries to claim with a straight face that tax cuts had no economic benefit, because the tax base re-growth (which takes time) and higher revenues (which are very much a lagging indicator) did not appear until 2004-5, and the bubble revenues were not topped until 2006.

    Then another great bubble of history bursts – and in its wake, Democrats again saddle the country with more bad neo-Keynesian policies – and the most “stimulating” elements had effect directly in 2008, 2009 and 2010 – but as I expected at the time, there only a tepid recovery and even that stalled in 2011, with both GDP and revenues still below their 2007 peaks, and it’s not even clear that they’re going to rise this year – and Cas would say that we haven’t tried hard enough on the bad neo-Keynesianism, and/or are expecting results too quickly.

    That’s religion, not science.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 4:30 pm - August 8, 2011

  78. And Cas – before you try to claim that we have topped (or at least recovered to) the 2007 GDP peak – no, we still have not: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/real-gdp-still-below-pre-recession-peak.html

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 4:39 pm - August 8, 2011

  79. Hmm,
    ILC and NDT,

    Cas quotes and tries to use GDP growth, tax revenues, and unemployment rates from 1996 – 2001 — at the expansion, height, and burst of the dot.com bubble.

    I know you worry about that from other threads NDT, but you and ILC then turn around and use 2006 and 2007 tax receipts and U/E figures (and implicitly, improved GDP) at the height of the real estate bubble, to support your points–in this thread.

    Talk about a couple of pots calling a kettle black! :)

    Comment by Cas — August 8, 2011 @ 6:54 pm - August 8, 2011

  80. Also ILC,

    belief that that re-growing a country’s tax base takes no time at all and that the base-growing effects of tax cuts should therefore be instantaneous, or virtually so

    Is this your anti-definition of a Laffer Curve? The belief that that re-growing a country’s tax base takes… time and that the base-growing effects of tax cuts takes some indeterminate amount of time to work their way into an economy.

    Is that right?

    Comment by Cas — August 8, 2011 @ 7:02 pm - August 8, 2011

  81. Sorry, ILC, the last bit is supposed to be a stab at what you think the Laffer Curve is. The bit above it, is what you think it is not.

    Comment by Cas — August 8, 2011 @ 7:03 pm - August 8, 2011

  82. I know you worry about that from other threads NDT, but you and ILC then turn around and use 2006 and 2007 tax receipts and U/E figures (and implicitly, improved GDP) at the height of the real estate bubble, to support your points–in this thread.

    Actually, Cas, we worried about it in this thread, because you are the one quoting numbers from the late 1990s through 2001 here.

    So since you insist that statistics from a bubble are “irrelevant”, your attempt to quote anything from this time period does not qualify under your own standards – and yet you still try it.

    Then, hilariously, as is typical for you when you are cornered, you try to passive-aggressive project onto other people your own failings.

    You have been completely humiliated in this thread, Cas. Your lies and stupidity were shown completely, first in your insane attempt to lie, then in your even more insane attempt to deny facts that were placed directly in your face. You are delusional, and what you write should be considered as the rantings of a desperate welfare addict trying to rationalize stealing from others.

    Scum like you and your friend Serenity — who I half-expect is rioting in the streets of England right now — will not be stopped by any sort of intelligent argument. You will be stopped when people stop paying for you and the choice becomes for you to embrace reality or starve.

    You can either have that stoppage be slow and controlled as we unwind the wreckage of the unsustainable welfare state your Obama Party created, or you can have it be abrupt when the system crashes and you are faced with the mobs of other welfare addicts you and yours created burning down your cities.

    But the game is up. Produce or starve. No one is going to support you any more, Cas; you must either create value and exchange it for goods and services, or you are going to be out on a street corner. Period.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2011 @ 10:02 pm - August 8, 2011

  83. Hi NDT,

    Actually, Cas, we worried about it in this thread, because you are the one quoting numbers from the late 1990s through 2001 here.

    Oh, really?
    So, that gives you license to complain about using figures that don’t accord with your sensibilities as to proper statistics, but then turn around and do the same yourself. Righttttt….

    And, I referred to the Clinton years in an aside to VK. By all means find where I am quoting statistics from the 1990s to either you or ILC–in this thread. I did talk about 2001 and 2002 (and they are economically connected to the 1990s I grant–is that what you are referring to, here NDT?). I do note that ILC refers to the Clinton years in one of his posts to me. Feel free to slam him all you want.

    So since you insist that statistics from a bubble are “irrelevant”, your attempt to quote anything from this time period does not qualify under your own standards – and yet you still try it.

    I would point out that you were the one who felt I was using “bubble” statistics. I was just suggesting that if you complain about me doing this, then you should complain about yourself and ILC for doing the same thing. What was it: “What is good for goose, is good for the gander” or “sauce for the gander” or something like that, wasn’t it?

    You are not going to address this issue I raised and we both know it. So, why bother “doubling down” and feigning outrage over this issue?

    Scum like you

    And you think I am the one with the irrational argument, NDT? It is just further proof, NDT. You cannot make your points without irrational vitriol. How sad.

    Comment by Cas — August 8, 2011 @ 11:13 pm - August 8, 2011

  84. the choice becomes for you to embrace reality or starve…the game is up. Produce or starve.

    LOL – that sounds straight out of _Atlas Shrugged_. Has a certain Christian been reading it? :-)

    Of course, notwithstanding that Rand was an atheist, the two are less exclusive of each other than many believe. I’d be happy to explain it over lunch.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 8, 2011 @ 11:38 pm - August 8, 2011

  85. So, that gives you license to complain about using figures that don’t accord with your sensibilities as to proper statistics, but then turn around and do the same yourself.

    Projecting again, Cas?

    YOU stated that bubble statistics weren’t valid, remember?

    And GDP growth for the period in question doesn’t support that claim. I suspect that “mis-allocate” is a better word, as this is consistent with the views you hold, concerning over-investment, as to the causes of the 2007-8 bubble burst.

    What I am doing is holding you to your own rules. That completely implodes your argument, so that’s why you’re whining and screaming and throwing one of your typical passive-aggressive tantrums, flailing and trying to latch on to any desperate irrational straw as always.

    You have been completely humiliated in this thread, Cas. Your lies and stupidity were shown completely, first in your insane attempt to lie, then in your even more insane attempt to deny facts that were placed directly in your face. You are delusional, and what you write should be considered as the rantings of a desperate welfare addict trying to rationalize stealing from others.

    You’ve already been called out on that. Your goal is to destroy American standards of living. Your goal is to use government to forcibly take from others. Your goal is to completely decouple any sort of wealth or value from work and replace it with “entitlement”.

    And yes, Cas, you are scum. That is exactly what you call someone who refuses to work and then steals other peoples’ wealth from working at gunpoint. You are a pathetic piece of welfare scum who will not lift a finger, but demands that the rest of society finance you as if you were. You are an adult child who walks around taking bread out of the hands of children of working parents because you will not work and will not support yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2011 @ 11:54 pm - August 8, 2011

  86. So, that gives you license to complain about using figures that don’t accord with your sensibilities as to proper statistics, but then turn around and do the same yourself.

    Projecting again, Cas?

    YOU stated that bubble statistics weren’t valid, remember?

    And GDP growth for the period in question doesn’t support that claim. I suspect that “mis-allocate” is a better word, as this is consistent with the views you hold, concerning over-investment, as to the causes of the 2007-8 bubble burst.

    What I am doing is holding you to your own rules. That completely implodes your argument, so that’s why you’re whining and screaming and throwing one of your typical passive-aggressive tantrums, flailing and trying to latch on to any desperate irrational straw as always.

    You have been completely humiliated in this thread, Cas. Your lies and stupidity were shown completely, first in your insane attempt to lie, then in your even more insane attempt to deny facts that were placed directly in your face. You are delusional, and what you write should be considered as the rantings of a desperate welfare addict trying to rationalize stealing from others.

    You’ve already been called out on that. Your goal is to destroy American standards of living. Your goal is to use government to forcibly take from others. Your goal is to completely decouple any sort of wealth or value from work and replace it with “entitlement”.

    And yes, Cas, you are scum. That is exactly what you call someone who refuses to work and then steals other peoples’ wealth from working at gunpoint. You will not lift a finger, but demands that the rest of society finance you as if you were. You are an adult child who walks around taking bread out of the hands of children of working parents because you will not work and will not support yourself — and then you have the temerity to tell those parents that they are “selfish” for refusing you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2011 @ 11:58 pm - August 8, 2011

  87. LOL – that sounds straight out of _Atlas Shrugged_. Has a certain Christian been reading it?

    I read Atlas Shrugged years ago, ILC. :) At my Christian college, as a matter of fact.

    Probably because the concept of “produce or starve” is echoed in 2 Thessalonians 3:10b: “If anyone is not willing to work, neither shall he eat”.

    And given the particular people commenting on this thread, you may find great entertainment in Proverbs 26:16. :)

    But yes, lunch sounds like a tremendous idea!

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2011 @ 12:10 am - August 9, 2011

  88. Proverbs 26:16

    ROFL – yes :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2011 @ 12:55 am - August 9, 2011

  89. Hi NDT,
    Wow, you had to let me know how you feel TWICE! :)

    YOU stated that bubble statistics weren’t valid, remember?
    And GDP growth for the period in question doesn’t support that claim. I suspect that “mis-allocate” is a better word, as this is consistent with the views you hold, concerning over-investment, as to the causes of the 2007-8 bubble burst.

    To re-envision a quote from I. Montoya: “I do not think my quote means what you think it does NDT.” I was talking about a definition of a word that ILC was using. How you get the conclusion you do, is beyond me. But, you are happy to ignore context, or to not ask for clarification of what I mean. So be it.

    whining and screaming … tantrums, flailing and trying to latch on to any desperate irrational straw as always… completely humiliated … Your lies and stupidity … your insane attempt to lie …even more insane attempt to deny facts… delusional …rantings of a desperate welfare addict …Your goal is to destroy American standards of living… And yes, Cas, you are scum.

    Still, I notice you can’t bring yourself to address the issue I raised about why you are like pots calling a kettle black. It is clear that you prefer to insult and to use vitriol. Sorry, mate, but in my eyes your approach shows, amongst other things, your lack of self-control, not your mastery of the topic.

    Comment by Cas — August 9, 2011 @ 3:14 am - August 9, 2011

  90. Nope. As the CBO said, speeches do not equal plans. You lied again, Pomposity, and your lies have been thrown back in your face. Your Obama and your Reid screamed and cried and whined and blocked spending cuts and demanded doubling taxes, and it was only when Republicans held firm that your little tantrum children had to give in.

    Yeah, see NDT, I’ll try to explain this whole debating this to you since you seem to not get it.

    You see that whole ‘blocked spending cuts’ and ‘demanded doubling taxes’ things you said? Yes? Those are actions that would have surely been documented if true and thus require proof of some description to be taken seriously. Now since you’re the one who claimed the above actions both happened, it’s up to you to get on Google and provide all of us with evidence that they actually did happen as you stated. Now run along and get that done, OK?

    By the way, the doubling comes from what I cited above, which is showing how that the Obama delusion that spending need not be cut and that we only need to raise taxes would not even close the gap for one YEAR with a doubling of rates.

    So let me get this straight, this is your train of thought:

    Premise #1: Doubling taxes would not even close the budget gap for one year.

    Premise #2: Harry Reid and Barack Obama will not even consider spending cuts.

    Conclusion: Their intention is to double taxes and not cut spending at all, even though that proposal would have absolutely ruinous effects on the economy, not solve any problems, get absolutely murdered in Congress (even by the majority of their own party), and completely destroy both of their careers. Because they’re evil.

    I don’t even need to refute this since it’s self-refuting, but I already gave evidence that both of them started from a position of closing the budget gap with a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts, and that both eventually went along with a plan that only involved spending cuts. In what sense does that add up to insisting on no spending cuts (as you put it)?

    That’s math, Serenity.

    Since when does mathematics factor into a debate that’s entirely about what people said and did? Saying that doubling taxes would not close to budget deficit is not the same as proving that someone endorsed a plan to do so. In fact, I struggle to think how anyone would even think it did.

    You are too infantile, stupid, and lazy to understand math,

    I have a GCSE in mathematics. I understand the subject just fine, I refuse to address it because it’s orthogonal to the present debate and you’re only raising it to try and confuse the subject, as you always do.

    which is likely why you are on welfare, just like your friend Cas. And that is why the only thing you can do is scream and whine and cry and demand that society pay you equally to those who do work and do provide value to society.

    Lazy, worthless parasite. That’s all you are, Serenity.

    Cas is right, you do lack self-control. Now go and find the sources I asked you for, and please try to behave yourself in the future.

    Comment by Serenity — August 10, 2011 @ 4:46 pm - August 10, 2011

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.491 Powered by Wordpress