TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 28, 2010 23:22:33 GMT -5
Obama should call and congratulate Joe Webb. That probably won't happen though. I bet he just criticizes the Vikings' defense for being obstructionist instead.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 28, 2010 23:23:21 GMT -5
The 4th Rail is a term that has been used to describe some issues in US politics in the media, although not necessarily HCR. If HCR drew such a reaction - and let's be honest it was fairly heated and polarized (slurs of fascist, socialist, etc. all in the mix) - I hate to know which issue is more important or polarizing outside of the 3rd rail.
We've been through 2 years and an election, and I am still not sure what the House Republicans will do. Despite the interest in jobs, I never heard a jobs plan announced during the campaign to further stimulate private sector job growth (unless you count the recent tax cuts).* I suspect we'll hear more polarized crap and not much else.
*Much of the recent job losses were in the public sector, and we've seen months of private sector job growth. Who knew that the Republicans were so concerned by the shrinking size of government.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 28, 2010 23:24:49 GMT -5
*Much of the recent job losses were in the public sector, and we've seen months of private sector job growth. Care to provide a link for this? I thought private companies weren't hiring and were instead just sitting on record profits.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 28, 2010 23:33:32 GMT -5
online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052970203599504575536001934032176.htmlpersonalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/09/03/private-sector-job-growth-unemployment-rate/There are graphs etc. floating out there too. Long term, you get no argument from me that the private sector is the main issue. But, the political rhetoric about what a "good" job is has shifted once the private sector went above 0. I guess the main gripe is that private sector job growth has not been fast enough in some circles, but there's some fuzzy econ there to think we could turn the recession on a dime to say nothing of employment which always lags. Strangely, these tax cuts may actually be the impetus - not because tax cuts are "good for business" but because they will serve as a second influx of money into the economy, which many economists have suggested is the reason why the first Obama package did not do as much as initially desired. There needed to be a second one.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 29, 2010 0:08:16 GMT -5
There are graphs etc. floating out there too. Long term, you get no argument from me that the private sector is the main issue. But, the political rhetoric about what a "good" job is has shifted once the private sector went above 0. I guess the main gripe is that private sector job growth has not been fast enough in some circles, but there's some fuzzy econ there to think we could turn the recession on a dime to say nothing of employment which always lags. Strangely, these tax cuts may actually be the impetus - not because tax cuts are "good for business" but because they will serve as a second influx of money into the economy, which many economists have suggested is the reason why the first Obama package did not do as much as initially desired. There needed to be a second one. Must have missed those links. Thanks for providing them. Also, there is a fundamental difference between Obama's stimulus and the extension of the tax rates. One was the gov't spending (future) taxpayer's money in a horribly inefficient and wasteful manner and one was the gov't not taking money from taxpayers. If it's an influx of money into the economy, it's only because the gov't didn't take the money away before it could get into the economy.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 29, 2010 0:24:48 GMT -5
Good point on the tax cuts - there was more to them, I think, than a simple rollover of the Bush brackets. There was the throw-in of the payroll tax break. Some have talked that up as good (maybe north of 1K for some families), but I am not sure that I buy in. Bear in mind also that Obama already cut taxes for a bunch of folks through the much-maligned stimulus (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html), and that tax cut did not create jobs either.
What is also frustrating is that there was this talk on both sides that the beneficiaries of the recent tax cut would create jobs because of it. We have not seen that kind of movement yet, and I am not sure there's much economic sense in the talking point. The job creation benefit is more indirect - people go out and buy stuff - and, on balance, I'm not so sure that worse than the government projects angle.
I think most think that there is an easy answer to the economic mess - particularly on the pro-tax cut side. It is almost laughable to think that's the case given the scope of the initial mess - far exceeding by any rational measure the recession that Reagan faced. What is efficient in the end will be what works, however long it takes IMO. On the employment side, I think we have to be prepared for an 8-10 year period until we're touching the 4-5% that would be ideal.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Dec 29, 2010 8:49:16 GMT -5
He got rolled by Russia on START; I don't know what expertise (if any) you bring to analyzing the merits of New Start, but the following Republicans supported it and here's a link to a letter of support written by Former Secretaries of State for the last FIVE Republican Presidents. Republicans who supported or voted for New StartSecretary of State Henry Kissinger Secretary of State George P Schultz Secretary of State James A Baker III Secretary of State Lawrence S Eagleberger Secretary of State Colin L. Powell Senator Lamar Alexander (Tenn) Senator Robert F Bennett (Utah) Senator Scott Brown (Mass) Senator Thad Cochran (Miss) Senator Susan Collins (Maine) Senator Bob Corker (Tenn) Senator Judd Gregg (NH) Senator Johnny Isakson (Ga) Senator Mike Johanns (Neb) Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) Senator Olympis Snowe (Maine) Senator George Voinovich (Ohio) Senator Richard Lugar (Indiana and the most highly respected Republican Senator re: Issues of Foreign Affairs) Not to mention Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 29, 2010 8:51:51 GMT -5
Back to my original thought. Barry O must be feeling great about his boy Ron Mexico right about now. Lock up your dogs and young women. The dog-killing, STD passing scumbag is reborn with the blessing of POTUS.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Dec 29, 2010 8:58:06 GMT -5
Second depression? Really? kc... did your really post that? really? Have you read ANY financial news over the past two+ years? How about any mainstream news? Are you completely unaware that we just suffered the worst global financial crisis since the 30's? One that would have been unfathomably worse without the extreme emergency measures enacted by Bush II, Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, Pelosi, and Obama? (to name a few) There is room to debate which emergency measures were most effective, and whether too much or too little has been done to stave off the unthinkable, but there is no debating the dimension of the catastrophe so nearly avoided.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 29, 2010 10:48:49 GMT -5
Second depression? Really? kc... did your really post that? really? Have you read ANY financial news over the past two+ years? How about any mainstream news? Are you completely unaware that we just suffered the worst global financial crisis since the 30's? One that would have been unfathomably worse without the extreme emergency measures enacted by Bush II, Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, Pelosi, and Obama? (to name a few) There is room to debate which emergency measures were most effective, and whether too much or too little has been done to stave off the unthinkable, but there is no debating the dimension of the catastrophe so nearly avoided. I do follow the news, I guess I just missed all the stories on 25% unemployment, a 70% drop in international trade, breadlines, etc. Also "Bush II, Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, Pelosi, and Obama" Which one of these things is not like the other?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 29, 2010 11:33:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 29, 2010 12:31:06 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Dec 29, 2010 12:51:21 GMT -5
Also, there is a fundamental difference between Obama's stimulus and the extension of the tax rates. One was the gov't spending (future) taxpayer's money in a horribly inefficient and wasteful manner Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Or is just more partisan, party-line talking points totally bereft of any supporting documentation whatsoever? Ah... I thought so. The Stimulus package was nearly 40% tax cuts for American Taxpayers. So how inefficient was that? Some of the rest was extended unemployment compensation -- for Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. All research to date has shown that such payments not only help those in dire need, but also get spent almost immediately, thus providing a boost to the economy. Much of the remainder of the stimulus was provided to cities and states to help offset their lower tax revenues that were the result of the economic collapse -- thus preserving essential jobs and services (police, fire, teachers, etc), and again - providing economic stimulus for the economy. Evidence has shown that one of the LEAST effective means of stimulating the economy is to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. Why? because they don't spend their increased cash flow. It goes into savings and investments -- ergo, does NOT stimultate the economy. It also seems rather self-evident and very easy to comprehend. But, I guess if your party is bankrolled by the richest Americans and the wealthiest companies, you will return that support instead of enacting policies that will benefit the economy and the country as a whole.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 29, 2010 13:03:02 GMT -5
Evidence has shown that one of the LEAST effective means of stimulating the economy is to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. Why? because they don't spend their increased cash flow. It goes into savings and investments -- ergo, does NOT stimultate the economy. It also seems rather self-evident and very easy to comprehend. I'll find the stuff about the stimulus being wasteful and inefficient later. But first, can you explain to me how people investing doesn't stimulate the economy? Also, banks use the money in savings accounts for loans, most of which I assume are given to individuals for big purchases like cars and houses and to businesses for expansions (or to open). But you know, that kind of thing probably doesn't stimulate the economy either.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 29, 2010 13:21:23 GMT -5
Oh, please. There are lots of things to get mad at Obama about. This doesn't rank in the top 50. Exactly, just like the fact that he's giving Manhattan back to the Indians!!!!!!!!!!For Elvado, here's a list of the year in Obama pseudo-scandals.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 29, 2010 13:23:28 GMT -5
People aren't buying houses with cash/savings - I think that much is clear on balance. They buy with funny money and deduct the bleeping interest on their loans (query whether that is what a free market is when the tax system just rigs it for you on the back end). The amount of interest that is deductible is truly staggering. Since taxes are so oppressive, you can also get the deduction on a second home. Woe to those with over $1M of home indebtedness who don't get to deduct in full. This kind of nonsense only contributes to people making risky investments, and there are more than enough examples of this kind of "ownership society" over the past decade.
The stuff that is purported to be helpful for businesses is the capital gains breaks and accelerated depreciation steamrolled through under ERTA and then accepted as gospel by Reagan's successors. Businesses may buy junk as a result to expand their businesses (new tractors/equipment etc.) and deduct depreciation, but if the demand is not there, it just makes for failure. (And, when it becomes evident that the investment was not wise, the risky businesses may just have to pay the depreciation deductions back to some extent).
This kind of stuff - tractors and deep friers - is not the stuff of investment, i.e. you won't be making money back on it when you sell (or, at least, not anything to write home about). It is only helpful if people are buying the french fries, wheat, SnoCones, and whatever else.
I think the point is that, contrary to Jim Demint's tax cut religion, tax cuts are not immune from the operations of business and do not bless investments. They don't make certain decisions, by definition, wise, particularly where there is no underpinning in the economy to make the investment.
As far as new businesses to open, there really is not much in the Bush package to help there. I don't know how, if at all, the Obama package differs. The most you can get back under section 195 is 5K, which is not a heck of a lot in the business world. That 5K is reduced dollar for dollar by the amount by which your expenditures exceed 50K.
I'm not an economist, but it does seem like the tax cuts went into savings and investment. Wall Street has seen its best run in quite some time, but it has not tinkled down on others.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 29, 2010 13:32:08 GMT -5
People aren't buying houses with cash/savings - I think that much is clear on balance. They buy with funny money and deduct the bleeping interest on their loans. The amount of interest that is deductible is truly staggering. Since taxes are so oppressive, you can also get the deduction on a second home. Woe to those with over $1M of home indebtedness. This kind of nonsense only contributes to people making risky investments, and there are more than enough examples of this kind of "ownership society" over the past decade. The stuff that is purported to be helpful for businesses is the capital gains breaks and accelerated depreciation steamrolled through under ERTA and then accepted as gospel by Reagan's successors. Businesses may buy junk as a result (new tractors/equipment etc.), but if the demand is not there, it just makes for failure. (And, when it becomes evident that the investment was not wise, the risky businesses may just have to pay the depreciation deductions back to some extent). I think the point is that, contrary to Jim Demint's tax cut religion, tax cuts are not immune from the operations of business. They don't make certain decisions, by definition, wise, particularly where there is no underpinning in the economy to make the investment. As far as new businesses to open, there really is not much in the Bush package to help there. I don't know how, if at all, the Obama package differs. The most you can get back under section 195 is 5K, which is not a heck of a lot in the business world. That 5K is reduced dollar for dollar by the amount by which your expenditures exceed 50K. The effect is more indirect, I think. Long term v. short term. And I wasn't saying that people were buying houses w/ their savings--I was saying that increased savings helps credit flow, which can stimulate the economy, both through helping to finance big purchases or for business loans. One would assume that cheaper loans makes some decisions worth making that might not be a good decision at a higher interest rate, not to mention that businesses can now make decisions for the next two years that they were probably putting off until they learned their tax burden. I think people investing money helps the economy as well. I'd think it helps at least as much as purchasing consumer goods that are made in other countries, especially in the long term. But mainly, I was just responding to SirSaxa's assertion that people saving or investing money didn't stimulate the economy.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 29, 2010 13:43:44 GMT -5
The interest thing may come out in the wash because businesses can also deduct interest on debt in our free market system buttressed by tax cuts of the past.* Tax cuts, if based on the current system under the Internal Revenue Code, may tinker around but not much else to make me think that better treatment of interest will do much to stimulate anything good from a tax point of view. Now, it may be better business to not have debt at a high interest rate, but, as you said, the effect there is indirect at best.
In the end, we end up about 2-3 steps down the chain before much of anything is realized from the interest point of view. Query whether that is efficient. Again, I don't think there are any easy answers, and the suggestions to the contrary from the right, particularly the Tea Party, have not inspired much confidence in me that they know the way out. I do think tax cuts are a tool in the arsenal, but we've reached the point where we're practically cutting taxes on funny money.
*The interest deductions really are a political sacred cow, particularly on the home side. If you read the Code, personal interest is not deductible, and the exceptions are stunning and quickly pour out of the other side of the mouth of the Code (i.e. you can deduct interest on the thing that generates the most indebtedness for most families within a gross limit).
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Dec 29, 2010 13:55:58 GMT -5
I'll find the stuff about the stimulus being wasteful and inefficient later. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. But first, can you explain to me how people investing doesn't stimulate the economy? Not a bad question T-bird. Depends on the type of investment. Most of the money that rich people get in additional tax breaks goes into the stock market, bond market and such. That drives up the prices of those investment vehicles, but does not create any NEW investment - productive steps to stimulate the economy. There is an indirect "wealth effect" that provides minimal economic stimulation - when people FEEL weathier - due to asset price appreciation - they start to spend a little more. But to attempt to stimulate the economy through that method truly IS wasteful and inefficient. Banks already have tons of money on their books and access to much more from the Fed at ridiculously low prices, but they aren't making loans. Why? One reason is the Housing market ... people are afraid to buy houses because they are still afraid for their jobs and where the economy is going. Not as bad as a year or two ago, but nowhere near back to normal. And the decline in housing prices makes people feel poorer. Business investment? The extended tax cuts have little to do with business taxes. Businesses make investments when they see a good likelihood of return. Currently, manufacturing utilization in this country is down significantly - so no need to invest in new production capability. Where then to invest? In emerging markets where the growth is happening. There is a canard that the tax cuts will lead wealthy people who own companies to hire more workers. But think about that. If they are not hiring more workers now -- it is because they don't see the demand for their products and services increasing. If they DID, they would hire more workers. Saving money on the taxes they owe isn't going to persuade anyone to hire more workers. T-bird, and others. Most people who post on this board have a strong, partisan POV and like to add a little attitude or poke those who take the opposite POV. OK, that's to be expected. But, if we are really trying to share some views and understand other perspectives, we need to look at the evidence, think through the issues, and stay clear of the "talking points" that the spin doctors want to push. Some posters are always going to post their hate-filled diatribes against... whomever/whatever... regardless of facts. We know this. But I believe there are quite a few posters who would LIKE to have a better understanding of what is going on and how we can make things better. Before that can happen, one needs to jetison their partisan views... in favor of neutral, fact-based analyses. Can that actually happen here?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Dec 29, 2010 14:07:36 GMT -5
*Much of the recent job losses were in the public sector, and we've seen months of private sector job growth. Care to provide a link for this? I thought private companies weren't hiring and were instead just sitting on record profits. Courtesy of the National Review, but might most of the public sector job losses have been from the Census?
|
|