Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Moving on, I am not backtracking on the ridiculous spending levels that occured under both Bush and Obama (and I am not Johny come lately to criticizing Bush for this - check the archive). I'm also not talking about stimulus. What I am talking about is employment. Do you think raising taxes in this environment is good for employment? Neutral?

You are talking about using deficit spending to stimulate economic activity. That's stimulus. About a third of the stimulus bill was tax cuts on exactly this theory. If you are trying to use the government to promote employment with deficit spending, you can either borrow to spend money or borrow to cut taxes, but the theory of both is exactly what you describe above. And if you're trying to promote employment, economists agree that a lousy way to do it is to extend the Bush tax cuts:



Tax cuts for the rich are worse than tax cuts in general for the reason Adder described.

In short, if your primary concern were either the national debt or promoting employment, the solution you are proposing would be well down the list.

On the other hand, if you are a Republican politician and you want to cut taxes for the rich but you don't want to find offsetting spending cuts, it sounds better than saying you want to borrow from future generations to cut taxes for the rich.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Wow, were things fucked up.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You are talking about using deficit spending to stimulate economic activity. That's stimulus. About a third of the stimulus bill was tax cuts on exactly this theory. If you are trying to use the government to promote employment with deficit spending, you can either borrow to spend money or borrow to cut taxes, but the theory of both is exactly what you describe above.

1. You didn't answer my question (and I'm curious what your answer is).

2. Do you not see a difference between maintaining the status quo and effecting a cut (or raise)?

I understand the theory that the "rich" are less likely to spend and more likely to save a tax cut, but I also posit that the first thing that the rich forgo when faced with a tax hike is not their savings. They trim the fat, which includes (in your class warfare parlance) excess "help".

[Replaced_Texan]

Case study on how hard it will be to repeal the ACA, or even parts of it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Case study on how hard it will be to repeal the ACA, or even parts of it.

I didn't even know about that. These guys have killed small business in america. Ty, you know everything, should I not worry about having to do these forms? dozens per month probably?
honestly, if the Dems snuck that through, I want the Rs to go nuclear. the Ds can't be trusted for shit.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I don't understand how there will be any "stimulus" from keeping in place what is currently there.

The flip side of stimulus is "anti-stimulus" or contractionary policy. It is less contractionary to hike the taxes of those who would otherwise save the money instead of spend it.

I do understand how a tax hike (which this is) would have an anti-stimulative effect, which is my point.

Call it a "tax hike" if you want, but as someone who cares about deficits, surely you agree that at the time it was a horribly irresponsible, and entirely unpaid for, tax cut that provided little or no stimulus.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

1. You didn't answer my question (and I'm curious what your answer is).

I forgot to answer too. It's mildly contractionary. The question is whether it is more contrationary than it is deficit-busting. I vote no, but it's a judgment call.

2. Do you not see a difference between maintaining the status quo and effecting a cut (or raise)?

No. Sunk costs.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Wow, were things fucked up.

I am worried about what these disclosures will mean about the next time around, when people like Sanders might succeed in requiring this type of disclosure in closer to real-time, which will be a disaster.

In other words, we should be happy that the Fed was able to do what was needed, and worry about the tendency to use transparency to prevent it from happening again.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I didn't even know about that.

Really? I'm 99% certain that it was mentioned on this very board.

In other timely news, there was just a commercial on my TV about a class action against Extenz. In case anyone here might be a class member or something.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Really? I'm 99% certain that it was mentioned on this very board.

In other timely news, there was just a commercial on my TV about a class action against Extenz. In case anyone here might be a class member or something.

I just took the word from the "knowledgeable" that HC wouldn't cripple small business. Can I just count a win or do I need to get an estimate of how many forms we'll need to file each year?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I just took the word from the "knowledgeable" that HC wouldn't cripple small business. Can I just count a win or do I need to get an estimate of how many forms we'll need to file each year?

No idea. But I am trying Hendricks gin for the first time, and I think I rather like it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

No idea. But I am trying Hendricks gin for the first time, and I think I rather like it.

nero fiddled while rome burned. you drink gin, what, Ty drinks box wine?

The only Dem on the PB i respect is RT. she's pretty.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

nero fiddled while rome burned. you drink gin, what, Ty drinks box wine?

Try again, I think you can be funnier. (maybe gin makes me an optimist)

The only Dem on the PB i respect is RT. she's pretty.

She is the only one of us that is smart enough to talk only when she knows what she is talking about. Come to think of it, from personal experience, that might be related to the fact that she is the only female regular contributor.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

She is the only one of us that is smart enough to talk only when she knows what she is talking about.

why you discount me?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Try again, I think you can be funnier. (maybe gin makes me an optimist)

I wasn't trying to be funny. I was serious. I know you have no idea the burden the Dems put on small business, but it's seems enormous.