Tax the Rich!

[Pepper]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/imagining-the-end-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/

First, the Congressional Budget Office projects that not only would the short-term deficit come under control if Congress let current law stand, but the long-term deficit would, too. Austin Frakt has reproduced the chart on the Incidental Economist blog.

We have a revenue problem.

 

[GenSeneca]

The chart doesn't show that 100% of the deficit is due to Bush policies.

I stand corrected, 90%... The 5 colors in the CBPP graph clearly attribute 90% of the CBO's current and projected deficits to Bush policies. In FY'16 the "Bush Deficit" is $1 trillion and the portion of the deficit not attributed to Bush is $0.1 trillion, or 10%.

The agenda of the creators of the chart is information.

It's disinformation, AKA, propaganda. Why do you think Medicare Advantage, a "Bush Policy" that contributes to the deficit, was left off the CBPP graph?

Are you capable of dealing with information that is contrary to your preconceptions?

Refer to my message to BigRob about starting from the POV of "It's Bush's Fault!".

Both would contribute to the drop in revenue.

Does lowering taxes cause a drop in revenue? Yes or No

Yes, I believe that a return to the tax rates during the Clinton years would put us on a better footing.

Will increasing income tax rates cause an increase of income tax revenue? Yes or No

Considering that you missed the point, I guess it was a waste of your time. That's not something that I can fix.

It's your claim that "deregulation" played a role in the meltdown but you have offered nothing to support, much less prove, your case.

 

[Pepper]

I stand corrected, 90%... The 5 colors in the CBPP graph clearly attribute 90% of the CBO's current and projected deficits to Bush policies. In FY'16 the "Bush Deficit" is $1 trillion and the portion of the deficit not attributed to Bush is $0.1 trillion, or 10%.

Which makes sense, as we entered the Bush years in good financial shape, and when he left, we were up **** creek.

It's disinformation, AKA, propaganda. Why do you think Medicare Advantage, a "Bush Policy" that contributes to the deficit, was left off the CBPP graph?

Is that your entire case against the graph? Seriously? That makes it "propaganda"? What an easy time you must have working out "solutions" to real problems. Information you don't like is all "propaganda".

Refer to my message to BigRob about starting from the POV of "It's Bush's Fault!".

Does lowering taxes cause a drop in revenue? Yes or No

Will increasing income tax rates cause an increase of income tax revenue? Yes or No

Lowering taxes tends to decrease revenue, and raising them tends to increase it.

You're going to have to calm down and make your entire point. I assume you're going to try to sell the idea that cutting taxes always increases revenue, but that's not a claim you can sustain.

It's your claim that "deregulation" played a role in the meltdown but you have offered nothing to support, much less prove, your case.

Well, actually, I did support my claim. Further, please note that since Reagan initiated deregulatory mania, we've had three severe financial crises - Black Monday, the S and L crisis, and the one that we're dealing with now.

Prior to that, we had NO severe crises since the Great Depression. FDR and the Congress put measures of regulation in place that smoothed out the rough edges of the economy for the general public. Before the Great Depression, the history of economics was nothing but a continuous cycle of boom and bust.

 

[TruthSeeker]

GenSeneca and BigRob, I don't envy your gargantuan task.............trying to debate FACTS with somebody who is intellectually dishonest and a simple-minded leftist hack.

I am not even going to get involved in this one. It's simply not worth the effort. I'd rather debate my dogs about the advantages of pooping outdoors instead of on the carpet. At least with my dogs, I know they are listening and they aren't going to whine and snivel and lie to me.

 

[Pepper]

Poor Truthseeker. I must have messed up his little paradise.

 

[BigRob]

GenSeneca and BigRob, I don't envy your gargantuan task.............trying to debate FACTS with somebody who is intellectually dishonest and a simple-minded leftist hack.

I am not even going to get involved in this one. It's simply not worth the effort. I'd rather debate my dogs about the advantages of pooping outdoors instead of on the carpet. At least with my dogs, I know they are listening and they aren't going to whine and snivel and lie to me.

It is noticeable that he has simply ignored the entire analysis that I posted from the WSJ.

Keep in mind those are actual CBO numbers that do not support his claims...so I suppose they will never be addressed.

 

[GenSeneca]

Which makes sense, as we entered the Bush years in good financial shape, and when he left, we were up **** creek.

While you consider us to have been in "good financial shape", we were actually in the midst of a market bubble. The dot com bubble burst march 10, 2000, while Clinton was in office and didn't bottom out until 2003 while Bush was in office.

The "good financial shape" you consider us to have been in was unsustainable.

Is that your entire case against the graph? Seriously? That makes it "propaganda"? What an easy time you must have working out "solutions" to real problems. Information you don't like is all "propaganda".

I pointed out the graphs lies and disinformation, that's what makes it propaganda.

Lowering taxes tends to decrease revenue, and raising them tends to increase it.

Got proof? If your "proof" is a link to a 30 min program that doesn't even mention the topic, then skip it and just admit you have no proof.

You're going to have to calm down and make your entire point. I assume you're going to try to sell the idea that cutting taxes always increases revenue, but that's not a claim you can sustain.

Claiming that lowering taxes increases revenue is just as fallacious as claiming that raising taxes increases revenue. Neither claim can be supported by empirical data.

Well, actually, I did support my claim.

An NPR show that didn't cite a single example of deregulation... If that's all you have to support your claim about the role of deregulation in the collapse, then you have no argument.

Further, please note that since Reagan initiated deregulatory mania, we've had three severe financial crises - Black Monday, the S and L crisis, and the one that we're dealing with now.

You do realize that's just political rhetoric and you're not actually formulating an argument with such claims, right?

Before the Great Depression, the history of economics was nothing but a continuous cycle of boom and bust.

Before the creations of the Federal Reserve, we never had a Great Depression.

 

[GenSeneca]

It is noticeable that he has simply ignored the entire analysis that I posted from the WSJ.

Keep in mind those are actual CBO numbers that do not support his claims...so I suppose they will never be addressed.

I'm always disappointed at how flimsy the evidence is that convinces people to believe in absurd conspiracy theories. What doesn't shock me is their total inability to present a solid argument in support of their theory coupled with their uncanny ability to dismiss any and all evidence that contradicts their theory.

 

[Rick]

Talking to Pepper is like talking to a dummy - you can imagine you're having a conversation , but you aren't really.

 

[Pepper]

Your point about bubbles is valid. Yes, we've had several bubbles, and they have burst. But the US government was on good footing when Clinton left, and Bush II promptly did a series of things to screw that up.

You have said that the graph is disinformation and attacked the source as "proof".

The NPR program is an hour long, and provides you with some background about the crazy things being done on Wall Street. I think we can dispense with the idea that you listened to it.

Claiming that lowering taxes increases revenue is just as fallacious as claiming that raising taxes increases revenue. Neither claim can be supported by empirical data.

So nothing does anything?

You do realize that's just political rhetoric and you're not actually formulating an argument with such claims, right?

It's fact, Rob. Please look at history. We had recessions and inflation, we had good times and bad, but no major crises.

Before the creations of the Federal Reserve, we never had a Great Depression.

That is so wrong it's hysterical. It's true, nobody ever called it "The Great Depression", but the idea that we had no severe financial crises before the GD is absolutely ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

From this list, you can see a series of Panics, Recessions, and Depressions for the United States.

I'm always disappointed at how flimsy the evidence is that convinces people to believe in absurd conspiracy theories. What doesn't shock me is their total inability to present a solid argument in support of their theory coupled with their uncanny ability to dismiss any and all evidence that contradicts their theory.

You are living on another planet. None of this is a conspiracy theory. There's no need for you to get desperate.

 

[BigRob]

It's fact, Rob. Please look at history. We had recessions and inflation, we had good times and bad, but no major crises.

That is so wrong it's hysterical. It's true, nobody ever called it "The Great Depression", but the idea that we had no severe financial crises before the GD is absolutely ridiculous.

In one sentence you state we have good times and bad times, but "no major crises", then in the very next breath you argue "the idea that we had no severe financial crises before the Great Depression is ridiculous."

Does anyone else see the major contradiction here?

 

[Pepper]

In one sentence you state we have good times and bad times, but "no major crises", then in the very next breath you argue "the idea that we had no severe financial crises before the Great Depression is ridiculous."

Does anyone else see the major contradiction here?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. There is no contradiction, there's just the poster [me] not working hard enough to get the message across.

Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, this nation had ongoing financial crises.

From the Wikipedia link, you can see a list of them.

The reforms instituted by the New Deal legislation kept us from having major crises from the time of the New Deal under Reagan's deregulation mania.

Since the deregulation mania of Reagan, which Clinton participated in as well, we have had three major crises.

The New Deal reforms were good for the general public.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, deregulation is dangerous. You really are not thinking this through.

There is not a single regulation on the books anywhere that is both needed nor could not be replaced by an appropriate law making a harmful activity illegal.

Regulations hand power over from elected officials to hired bureaucrats.

Regulations change at whim.

Regulations undermine the rule of law.

etc.

If something is harmful then make it illegal. If it is not harmful then recognize that people are intended to be free.

When the government controls an activity that is not deserving of being illegal then that is an unwarranted restriction of freedom.

 

[Gipper]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. There is no contradiction, there's just the poster [me] not working hard enough to get the message across.

Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, this nation had ongoing financial crises.

From the Wikipedia link, you can see a list of them.

The reforms instituted by the New Deal legislation kept us from having major crises from the time of the New Deal under Reagan's deregulation mania.

Since the deregulation mania of Reagan, which Clinton participated in as well, we have had three major crises.

The New Deal reforms were good for the general public.

The Great Depression was a terrible crisis made much worse by the incompetence and arrogance of Hoover and FDR...but mostly FDR. Had FDR chosen to follow the actions taken by Coolidge (and later Reagan), the Great Depression might never have occurred. FDR was a fool just like the current occupant of the WH.

Today we see BO following the same flawed policies used by FDR and the same terrible consequences are evident.

When one does the same thing over and over expecting a different result, one is mentally impaired.

 

[BigRob]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. There is no contradiction, there's just the poster [me] not working hard enough to get the message across.

Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, this nation had ongoing financial crises.

From the Wikipedia link, you can see a list of them.

Ok...I see what you are saying. Thanks for the clarification.

The reforms instituted by the New Deal legislation kept us from having major crises from the time of the New Deal under Reagan's deregulation mania.

Since the deregulation mania of Reagan, which Clinton participated in as well, we have had three major crises.

You seem to forget that a lot of deregulation occurred under Carter as well...prior to Reagan. And I still think you need to fully explain what deregulation you are discussing specifically, and how that directly caused the problems you are associated it with.

Additionally, there are groups like CATO that blast Reagan for (in their opinion) making deregulation a low priority and not doing much in practice.

The New Deal reforms were good for the general public.

Good for the general public is not automatically good for the economy.

I have seen a couple studies by economists (UCLA I think) making the case that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression by 7 years. I will try to find that specific study to post.