Tea Party - Hilarity After the Jump...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Oh I’m sorry, I was confused, since the Recovery Act created over a million jobs…[/quote]

Laughable. What jobs are you referring to exactly?[/quote]

I don’t really (almost) ever agree with either you or Ryan, but perhaps he was referring to the CBO’s report but forgot to say “4th quarter?”

On that basis,
CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year
2009, ARRA added between 1.0 million and 2.1 million
to the number of workers employed in the United States,
and it increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs
by between 1.4 million and 3.0 million.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11044/02-23-ARRA.pdf

[quote]

At any rate, the tax cuts and massive deficits didn’t cause the turmoil, but they exacerbate it.[/quote]

They most certainly were a major cause of the turmoil. As any tea party-ier will tell you. (although most will probably claim in was justified because a Republican was presi…I mean because we HAD TO!) [/quote]

The Bush tax breaks led to more revenue for the governnment, not less so you are arguing against kind of a double strawman.

Which is just plain lazy.

42

[quote]orion wrote:

The Bush tax breaks led to more revenue for the governnment, not less so you are arguing against kind of a double strawman.

Which is just plain lazy.[/quote]

Yesterday, I clapped my hands and directly afterward the building next door collapsed! Looks like I’d better not clap my hands anymore… likewise, Bush cut taxes, and revenues increased. Looks like we’d better cut taxes to increase revenue, right?

[i]Supply-side Spin

June 11, 2007
Sen. John McCain has said President Bush’s tax cuts have increased federal revenues. But revenues would have been even higher without them.

Summary

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have “increased revenues.” He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. Thatâ??s highly misleading.

In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can’t have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White Houseâ??s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been â?? even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.

Itâ??s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate.[/i]

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

43

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

The Bush tax breaks led to more revenue for the governnment, not less so you are arguing against kind of a double strawman.

Which is just plain lazy.[/quote]

Yesterday, I clapped my hands and directly afterward the building next door collapsed! Looks like I’d better not clap my hands anymore… likewise, Bush cut taxes, and revenues increased. Looks like we’d better cut taxes to increase revenue, right?

[i]Supply-side Spin

June 11, 2007
Sen. John McCain has said President Bush’s tax cuts have increased federal revenues. But revenues would have been even higher without them.

Summary

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have “increased revenues.” He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. ThatÃ?¢??s highly misleading.

In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can’t have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White HouseÃ?¢??s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been Ã?¢?? even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.

It�¢??s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate.[/i]

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

[/quote]

First of all the Bush tax cuts led to higher revenue, that is not debatable.

Second, lower taxes lead to higher growth which in turn leads to higher taxes, but sometimes that takes a while.

Of course, if you are of the taxtaxtax spendspendspend mindset instead of actually caring for teh welfare of working cititens that is entirely unacceptable.

44

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

They most certainly were a major cause of the turmoil. As any tea party-ier will tell you. (although most will probably claim in was justified because a Republican was presi…I mean because we HAD TO!) [/quote]

No, they weren’t - the turmoil was caused by unsustainable overborrowing due to easy money policies and the wrong public policy incentives to borrowers (mainly for housing, but other areas as well).

Tax cuts didn’t cause any of this to occur, nor did profligate government spending. Had there never been any tax cuts, the phenomenon was teed up all the same because of our monetary policy and the GSEs. Taxes could have been at the same pre-Bush levels, and the credit market collapse would have occurred anyway.

Maybe you should consult with your “staffers on the Hill” for a summary. By they way, ever answer my questions about you being a US citizen or you ever working for an elected representative?

45

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

The Bush tax breaks led to more revenue for the governnment, not less so you are arguing against kind of a double strawman.

Which is just plain lazy.[/quote]

Yesterday, I clapped my hands and directly afterward the building next door collapsed! Looks like I’d better not clap my hands anymore… likewise, Bush cut taxes, and revenues increased. Looks like we’d better cut taxes to increase revenue, right?

[i]Supply-side Spin

June 11, 2007
Sen. John McCain has said President Bush’s tax cuts have increased federal revenues. But revenues would have been even higher without them.

Summary

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have “increased revenues.” He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. ThatÃ??Ã?¢??s highly misleading.

In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can’t have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White HouseÃ??Ã?¢??s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been Ã??Ã?¢?? even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.

It�?�¢??s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate.[/i]

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

[/quote]

First of all the Bush tax cuts led to higher revenue, that is not debatable.[/quote]

For one such as yourself who chooses to be so ideologically blind, you’re right. You won’t debate it. 'Course, I just provided a link that says that The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White HouseÃ??Ã?¢??s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all disagree with you.

Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to deal with it.

No disagreement.

'Course if you are of the “fingers-in-the-ears, ‘I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you’” mindset, that is entirely unacceptable.

46

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

They most certainly were a major cause of the turmoil. As any tea party-ier will tell you. (although most will probably claim in was justified because a Republican was presi…I mean because we HAD TO!) [/quote]

No, they weren’t - the turmoil was caused by unsustainable overborrowing due to easy money policies and the wrong public policy incentives to borrowers (mainly for housing, but other areas as well).

Tax cuts didn’t cause any of this to occur, nor did profligate government spending. Had there never been any tax cuts, the phenomenon was teed up all the same because of our monetary policy and the GSEs. Taxes could have been at the same pre-Bush levels, and the credit market collapse would have occurred anyway.[/quote]

Are we differentiating our crises now? Very nice. Financial AND economic you say? OMG! 'Course if you don’t think that government debt plays a role in economic crises, you can take that up with the tea party-ers …and a basic macro 101 textbook.

I’m fairly certain I’ve answered both of those questions in our previous discussions before you asked those questions… no doubt you enjoy asking such questions though.

By the way, ever answer my question about attending a 3rd tier school?

47

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Are we differentiating our crises now? Very nice. Financial AND economic you say? OMG! 'Course if you don’t think that government debt plays a role in economic crises, you can take that up with the tea party-ers …and a basic macro 101 textbook. [/quote]

Yes, we are, because the current crisis - an asset bubble and credit crisis - was caused primarily by monetary policy and skewed credit-related public policy incentives, not fiscal policy. Fiscal policy didn’t cause the crisis.

Though, I am eager to hear you explain how our taxing and spending caused the asset bubble and credit crunch. I await patiently.

Nope. So let’s hear it.

Third tier of what? I get all my information from the public library next to the feed store.

But let me guess - this is your way of not-so-subtly attempting to peacock that you are going to some top-rated school, right? You are majoring in education, right?

48

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Are we differentiating our crises now? Very nice. Financial AND economic you say? OMG! 'Course if you don’t think that government debt plays a role in economic crises, you can take that up with the tea party-ers …and a basic macro 101 textbook. [/quote]

Yes, we are, because the current crisis - an asset bubble and credit crisis - was caused primarily by monetary policy and skewed credit-related public policy incentives, not fiscal policy. Fiscal policy didn’t cause the crisis.

Though, I am eager to hear you explain how our taxing and spending caused the asset bubble and credit crunch. I await patiently.

[/quote]

One could argue that interest rates must be kept low because otherwise the US federal government will no longer be able to pay its debt.

It is a political sytem after all.

Maybe it is the other way around and there is so much debt because money is so cheap.

Either way I am not so sure that one can treat those two issues separately.

49

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< (I also note your point about them remaining “limited”, a point we agree on) [/quote]
This really is the key isn’t it. I am not as it may seem sometimes, anti government in theory down the line. There are several areas I, and I think most americans wouldn’t mind paying taxes for so much IF they did not quickly skyrocket totally outta control in intrusiveness, cost and manipulation.

It’s not that I would deny genuinely needy decent people a boost when appropriate, even through government. It’s that those programs never ever stay that way and without politicians of universally principled character in perpetuity they never will. Even if launched with the best of honest intentions and scrupulously managed at first they will not fail to degenerate into institutionalized campaign bribery in time. They just won’t and don’t and it is hence in my view dangerous to ever start down that path.

50

[quote]orion wrote:

One could argue that interest rates must be kept low because otherwise the US federal government will no longer be able to pay its debt.

It is a political sytem after all.

Maybe it is the other way around and there is so much debt because money is so cheap.

Either way I am not so sure that one can treat those two issues separately.[/quote]

I am discussing causation of the turmoil. A government’s desire to have low interest rates so it can borrow essentially at will might have been a reason for the Fed to keep interest rates so dangerously low for so long, but I don’t think so, and there is no evidence supporting it.

I have never suggested that fiscal and monetary policies aren’t interrelated - I said that taxing and spending by the government did not cause the economic crisis. It just didn’t. That isn’ a terribly partisan issue - most sane people recognize this.

Gambit Lost just likes to disagree for the sake of disagreement because he wants to be heard and taken seriously (even though the proof shows he doesn’t know much about the topics), and then when he refuted, he starts his sarcasm and embarrassingly bad version of Jon Stewart’s shtick.

51

EVERYBODY…

PLEASE READ

“END THE FED”

BY RON PAUL

52

Oh, and Gambit Lost, just give me a bullet point explanation for why the government’s lower taxes and spending caused the overborrowing crisis. You should be able to do it five or so. Shouldn’t be too terribly complicated to explain the causation. Look forward to reading it.

53

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Are we differentiating our crises now? Very nice. Financial AND economic you say? OMG! 'Course if you don’t think that government debt plays a role in economic crises, you can take that up with the tea party-ers …and a basic macro 101 textbook. [/quote]

Yes, we are, because the current crisis - an asset bubble and credit crisis - was caused primarily by monetary policy and skewed credit-related public policy incentives, not fiscal policy. Fiscal policy didn’t cause the crisis.

Though, I am eager to hear you explain how our taxing and spending caused the asset bubble and credit crunch. I await patiently.

Nope. So let’s hear it.

Third tier of what? I get all my information from the public library next to the feed store.

But let me guess - this is your way of not-so-subtly attempting to peacock that you are going to some top-rated school, right? You are majoring in education, right?
[/quote]

Nah, it was my not-so-subtle way of pointing out that you ignored the CBO numbers and fact that there was a dual crisis in favor of a strange personal attack.

Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to deal with either point.

54

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and Gambit Lost, just give me a bullet point explanation for why the government’s lower taxes and spending caused the overborrowing crisis. You should be able to do it five or so. Shouldn’t be too terribly complicated to explain the causation. Look forward to reading it.[/quote]

You really needed a second post on htis, huh? Orion already explained it for you.

55

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Nah, it was my not-so-subtle way of pointing out that you ignored the CBO numbers and fact that there was a dual crisis in favor of a strange personal attack.[/quote]

What do the CBO numbers have to do with explaining fiscal policy causing the crisis? Nothing. So explain it.

Which point? The fact that the stimulus “created” jobs? Separate issue. Happy to deal with it.

As to your claim that fiscal policy was a cause of the crisis - if it is so simple, just explain the causation. Shouldn’t be hard. Dumb it down for me.

56

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

You really needed a second post on htis, huh? Orion already explained it for you. [/quote]

No, he didn’t - he floated a near-conspiracy that the US government made the independent Fed keep interest rates low so they could borrow more cheaply. Now you are buying into this conspiracy?

57

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, he didn’t - he floated a near-conspiracy that the US government made the independent Fed keep interest rates low so they could borrow more cheaply. Now you are buying into this conspiracy?
[/quote]

The Fed is not independent. In order to keep this independence it needs to do exactly what the Executive branch wants. So yeah, please explain how that is being independent.

Or are you suggesting that the Fed does not merely give money to the treasury by buying treasury bills? It’s the same thing as printing money.

There is no conspiracy because this is precisely the only thing the fed can do. They set interest rates and provide liquidity. That’s it. It’s completely for political reasons that they do this.

58

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

I’m sorry, your attempt to retcon your posts simply can’t hold amy attention. I just wanted to point out that, not only do you suck the dick on one party, I am a communist, not a Democrat. Maybe get some info from someone other than Glenn Beck and you’ll be better informed.[/quote]

I love the interaction of this debate between the left and the right. It’s very entertaining. Outside of that, the thing that just boggles my mind are the many people like Ryan P. McCarter who have no problem openly calling themselves communists and socialists. Are people like you really that ignorant and uneducated about history, the economy and politics in general?

Everyone’s gonna have differences when it comes to certain beliefs and getting things effectively done certain ways, but never in modern history has a socialist or communist government ever led a successful country. Socialists and communists talk about everyone having equal rights but those types of government squash all individual freedoms.

One of you ignorant fools like Ryan P. give me one example, just one single example of a socialist or communist government being successful and I will buy you all the Biotest supps you like. It’s not gonna happen. Why does every single Russian or Venezuelan national that comes to the U.S. just shake their head when people like you speak? It’s because they’ve seen first hand how socialism and communism destroy nations and people. Ask Ozzie Guillen how he feels about your friend Sean Penn.

59

Fleck,

I doubt Ryan and his ilk lift weights, you might get a better response if you offered an unlimited amount of soy-laden stuff, George Michael albums, eco-friendly anything, aerobics DVDs, or a VIP pass for any government entitlement.

60

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Fleck,

I doubt Ryan and his ilk lift weights, you might get a better response if you offered an unlimited amount of soy-laden stuff, George Michael albums, eco-friendly anything, aerobics DVDs, or a VIP pass for any government entitlement. [/quote]

LMAO

Government entitlement: You mean Obama money, from Obama’s stash?