Author Topic: Bad Economics  (Read 6841 times)

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12405
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Bad Economics
« on: August 16, 2011, 06:56:36 PM »
August 15, 2011
Republican Extremism, Bad Economics
By STEVEN RATTNER

IN the middle of all the debt default drama and stock market turbulence, the leading Republican presidential candidates have begun to fill in the shadowy outlines of their positions on major economic issues.

And what a picture it is, a philosophy oriented around shrinking the role of the federal government in every imaginable way, by slashing spending, cutting taxes and halting or rescinding regulations. Their mantra is repeal and retrenchment, devoid of new initiatives or a positive agenda.

Some of these views are to the right even of the Tea Party; they amount to the most radically conservative positions of any set of candidates at least since Barry M. Goldwater in 1964.[/b]

Take the agreement to avert a disastrous default by cutting at least $2.1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul all opposed it. Only Jon M. Huntsman Jr. (whose poll numbers — perhaps not coincidentally — are in the single digits) supported it. In contrast, 58 percent of the members of the Tea Party in the House ultimately cast yes votes.

Not to be outdone, Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Paul ventured still further, insisting that they would never vote to raise the debt ceiling. That may sound good on the Iowa campaign trail, but it would easily tip the economy into an unending downward spiral.

Then there’s “cut, cap and balance,” the Tea Party-backed bill that the House passed in the midst of the debt ceiling showdown. It would have forced the elimination of a quarter of government spending, down to a share of the economy last reached in 1966.

The measure would also have initiated amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, which would impede our ability to manage economic cycles. Yes, Ronald Reagan also favored a balanced budget amendment — while supporting raising the debt ceiling 17 times.

Another recent legislative proposal that won support among the hopefuls — an alternative budget proposal from Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin — would have turned Medicare into a voucher program, shifting the bulk of the cost to the elderly.

But these are only the best-known of this crowd’s extreme views. In an unpublished interview, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas told Fortune magazine that if he had been president in 2008, he wouldn’t have engaged in the financial rescue effort. Without the bailout, initiated by the Bush administration, we would not have a functioning economy today.

Mr. Perry also wants to repeal the 16th Amendment, thereby eliminating the income tax, which accounts for 80 percent of government revenue. Like his fellow aspirants, Mr. Perry has offered no analysis to explain how the government would function under his vision.

Mr. Paul, who finished second in the Iowa straw poll on Saturday, has for decades sought to abolish the Federal Reserve, arguing that it is corrupt and unconstitutional. Eliminating our central bank is a crazy idea that would plunge the country back into an oscillating 19th-century world of panics and busts.

Mrs. Bachmann’s victory in the Iowa straw poll has only encouraged her extremism. In interviews over the weekend, she proclaimed her opposition to extending unemployment insurance for the jobless and her support for repealing both the Obama health care plan and the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. And she said that Citigroup and General Motors should have been allowed to go bankrupt without government help. (Even The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page appears unnerved; it called Monday for “a candidate who can appeal across the party’s disparate factions.”)

The candidates’ extreme views on economic policies reinforce the broad perception that American politics have become more polarized. Keith T. Poole, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, found that ideological divergence in Congress was the highest in at least 120 years. Interestingly, he concluded that the increased polarization resulted mostly from Republicans’ moving to the right, a conclusion that dovetails with the fact that Mr. Obama remains basically centrist even as his would-be opponents vie to outdo each other in their extreme form of conservatism.

Perhaps these Republican aspirants are simply pandering to antigovernment sentiment and, if elected, would govern more sensibly. Franklin D. Roosevelt campaigned on eliminating “unnecessary functions of government” and then vastly expanded federal spending to fight the Depression. Bill Clinton did the reverse, pledging tax cuts in response to the 1990-1 recession but governing as a fiscal moderate. If any of these Republicans is elected, we can only hope that they will follow this pattern. Meantime, we have a lot to worry about.

Steven Rattner, a Wall Street executive and a former Treasury official in the Obama administration, is a contributing writer to Op-Ed.


!

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2011, 06:57:49 PM »
LOL as opposed to obamas of move "forward", even if moving "forward" is moving us backwards

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12405
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2011, 07:01:30 PM »
 >:(

August 14, 2011
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Omaha

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.


To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

!

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12405
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2011, 07:04:59 PM »
LOL as opposed to obamas of move "forward", even if moving "forward" is moving us backwards
Epic response to the thread title instead of the specifics of the article.


Tony McNuts can't make a post on this board without a LOL::)
!

bike nut

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4239
  • Desperation is a stinky cologne
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2011, 07:50:05 PM »
Benny B still smoking The Messiah's stubby, little, stiffy.....attaboy, you will get double your ration of WIC cheese this month.

Obama...making Jimmy Carter look brilliant on a daily basis.

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12405
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2011, 08:06:27 PM »
Benny B still smoking The Messiah's stubby, little, stiffy.....attaboy, you will get double your ration of WIC cheese this month.

Obama...making Jimmy Carter look brilliant on a daily basis.
This post=No substance, no sense.



!

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2011, 08:14:17 PM »
hahahah buffet wants to tax 10 cents more on the dollar for every dollar OVER a million dollars you bring in...

first that doesnt compare at all to your heros 200-250k proposed income for tax hikes....

second even if we did what obama wanted WE WOULD STILL BE OUTSPENDING WHAT WE BRING IN!!!!

it isnt an income problem you fuking moron.....

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 60018
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2011, 08:15:14 PM »
Cool...another Benny pwning thread.

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 60018
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2011, 08:18:45 PM »
If you took all the money, all the possessions, mansions, holdings, yachts..everything from all of the rich people, billionairs included, you would barely makes a dent. Benny, you're an idiot. 

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12405
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2011, 08:20:39 PM »
hahahah buffet wants to tax 10 cents more on the dollar for every dollar OVER a million dollars you bring in...

first that doesnt compare at all to your heros 200-250k proposed income for tax hikes....

second even if we did what obama wanted WE WOULD STILL BE OUTSPENDING WHAT WE BRING IN!!!!

it isnt an income problem you fuking moron.....
My "hero" would happily accept 10 cents more on the dollar for every dollar over a million IF THE REPUBLICANS WOULD AGREE TO IT.

It's a matter of revenue AND entitlements, Tony McNuts.


Your spelling problems and your anger suggest you have been drinking tonight.  :-\
!

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
  • TND
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2011, 08:23:36 PM »
Betty Blanco, who splits his time between taking his 13 year old hood rats to the abortion clinic and "analyzing balance sheets"- aka the paper table cloth at Burger King where he can trace through a cartoon maze with a crayon, is obviously a glutton for punishment and is too stupid to realize that he makes himself look more and more foolish with every braindead thread he starts on political matters.

If 100% of the income generated by those in the U.S making 10 million dollars or more was confiscated, the net result would be around 240 billion dollars. We are currently in debt 16 trillion+ dollars.

I know that numbers above 20 ( when you can't count anymore fingers or toes) are difficult for you to understand, so ill simplify it for you; America is still majorly fucked because of the shit for brains liberal policies of the failed, incompetent, affirmative action joke of an empty suit currently squatting in the oval office. We need to cut spending and undo the damage Obama and his idiotic "fairness trumps basic math" political party have inflicted on the United States. How much will do it?  More than some by a bunch-- ( Big numbers confuse Betty)

Hope this helps.  


Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12405
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2011, 08:27:09 PM »
I am an idiot. 

We already know, MexiMelt.

!

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 60018
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2011, 08:32:44 PM »
My "hero" would happily accept 10 cents more on the dollar for every dollar over a million IF THE REPUBLICANS WOULD AGREE TO IT.

It's a matter of revenue AND entitlements, Tony McNuts.


Your spelling problems and your anger suggest you have been drinking tonight.  :-\

Here's the deal Benny, seriously. I don't believe for one second you analyze financials, it's complete bullshit, call me judgemental I don't give a fuck. If you keep borrowing to pay off old debts you still have to pay back what you borrowed at a premium. You cannot keep raising the debt because all you do is dig deeper and deeper just like this administration is doing. THIS COMMONSENSE..THIS IS ECON 101.

lowkey9

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 100
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2011, 08:34:36 PM »
reminder to coach and his short-sighted right wing asspals that keynesian econimics pulled us out of not only the great depression but the following recession of 1937

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2011, 08:35:55 PM »
My "hero" would happily accept 10 cents more on the dollar for every dollar over a million IF THE REPUBLICANS WOULD AGREE TO IT.

It's a matter of revenue AND entitlements, Tony McNuts.


Your spelling problems and your anger suggest you have been drinking tonight.  :-\
LOL no did work a 13 hour day today so im probably just a tad tired.

what entitlements would you cut benny?

Emmortal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2011, 08:51:16 PM »
Epic response to the thread title instead of the specifics of the article.


Tony McNuts can't make a post on this board without a LOL::)

2.1 trillion out of the budget over the next 10 years is a complete and utter JOKE.  We are facing trillions in debt with a budget that is out of control and they want to cut 200 billion a year for the next 10 years?  Give me a fucking break.

As far as Buffet goes, sure the rich could be taxed more, but answer this simple question: Why should ANYONE, rich or poor, continue to give their money to the government who has mismanaged it to the point of running the country into the ground?  Giving them MORE money is the answer?  I think not.

Emmortal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2011, 08:54:42 PM »
reminder to coach and his short-sighted right wing asspals that keynesian econimics pulled us out of not only the great depression but the following recession of 1937

And a reminder to you: what worked 80 years ago won't work today, completely different circumstances.  Which is why Keynesian mechanisms which have already been instituted have FAILED completely to do anything except postpone and compound the inevitible.

bike nut

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4239
  • Desperation is a stinky cologne
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2011, 09:14:02 PM »
Benny B with another retarded troll post about the Incompetent-In-Chief and his failed fiscal policies.

Just like his fellow Lib lapdogs Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper.

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #18 on: August 16, 2011, 09:32:56 PM »
some key points for all to consider:


-the defecit is caused by increased spending AND  decreased tax revenues.


-increasing taxes at this time is not a good idea because it could slow down economic growth


-decreasing spending is not a good idea because it WILL slow down economic growth


-an increase in spending, if done correctly (for example, spending on infrastructure and education) can increase economic activity AND increase tax revenues.


-increased jobs result from increased demand, decreasing taxes does nothing to increase demand and will do nothing to decrease unemployment.



mass243

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12873
  • On right side of the history!
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2011, 09:44:00 PM »
Warren only support democrats because his father was republican and he wants to rebel. Better later than never, they say  :-\

Yes. Sad.




tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #20 on: August 16, 2011, 09:53:17 PM »

As far as Buffet goes, sure the rich could be taxed more, but answer this simple question: Why should ANYONE, rich or poor, continue to give their money to the government who has mismanaged it to the point of running the country into the ground?  Giving them MORE money is the answer?  I think not.
  ::)

the government didnt mismanage our money

 the reason we are in so much debt is systemic failure of american society and the world as a whole.

 millions of irresponsible people taking out mortgages they couldnt afford, a financial system run by people who only care about turning out a short term profit even when it means bankruptcy in the long term, radical islamists thinking violence is the way of god, business owners who outsource good manufacturing jobs to countries where they can a pennies on the dollar, a fear of telling children that some people are smarter than other people and holding back the entire education system in an attempt to make everyone feel special.... etc etc.

sure, you can blame "the government" for not doing something to make things better, for allowing these things to come to fruition, but the government is the only outlet we have to organize together and to improve our situation and the notion that less government is better government and that any government attempt to improve society is bound to fail o even make things worse is detrimental to progress in a profound way.

mass243

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12873
  • On right side of the history!
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #21 on: August 16, 2011, 09:59:32 PM »

Emmortal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2011, 10:12:30 PM »

-decreasing spending is not a good idea because it WILL slow down economic growth

-an increase in spending, if done correctly (for example, spending on infrastructure and education) can increase economic activity AND increase tax revenues.


Classic Broken Window Fallacy, you need an education son.  How many times does this have to be said: Government spending does NOT in any way stimulate the economy.  Please refrain from making comments on economic topics from this point forward, thanks.




bike nut

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4239
  • Desperation is a stinky cologne
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2011, 10:14:53 PM »
"Palin has a bus? Well godammit I want a bus. I want two busses. I want taxpayers to pay for my busses and I want to get out on the campaign trail and get my ass out of DC before I get exposed as a fool even more. But don't call them campaign busses because people might want me to pay the $11M cost back"....B.H. Obama,  ONE AND DONE!

Emmortal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
Re: Bad Economics
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2011, 10:18:30 PM »
  ::)

the government didnt mismanage our money

 the reason we are in so much debt is systemic failure of american society and the world as a whole.

 millions of irresponsible people taking out mortgages they couldnt afford, a financial system run by people who only care about turning out a short term profit even when it means bankruptcy in the long term, radical islamists thinking violence is the way of god, business owners who outsource good manufacturing jobs to countries where they can a pennies on the dollar, a fear of telling children that some people are smarter than other people and holding back the entire education system in an attempt to make everyone feel special.... etc etc.

sure, you can blame "the government" for not doing something to make things better, for allowing these things to come to fruition, but the government is the only outlet we have to organize together and to improve our situation and the notion that less government is better government and that any government attempt to improve society is bound to fail o even make things worse is detrimental to progress in a profound way.

Are you fucking retarded? Let me answer that for you: yes you are and your grasp of this topic isn't even at the elementary level.

I don't blame the government for not doing something to make things better, I blame them for fucking this whole thing up to begin with.  Would we have had to raise the debt ceiling if the government didn't bail out the failed banks with tax payers money? No.

Also why you are at it, please name ONE SINGLE government program that's not in the red?  This whole idea of the government taking care of you is what brings countries to their knees.  In case you forgot, it was one of the main reasons why our founding fathers split off from England, or did they not teach that in junior high?