Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

They want to cut taxes in a big way, and cut spending in a small way, which will lead to bigger deficits. Under Paygo, they can't do this. Under Cutgo, they can.

They're not adding tax cuts, however. Those tax cuts are already in place. There's no explosion. There's continuation of the status quo.

And by the way, the deficit goes up either way. Kick in the tax increases and you'll see damage to the economy (pullbacks in spending and their attendant effects). Tax revenues will drop, and the deficit goes up anyway.

Can't tax your way out of a hole (and don't tell me Clinton did it... Clinton was gifted with a once in a lifetime transformative technology that created a boom that grew the US out of the early 90s economic malaise). The only way out is to grow.

...Good luck to us on that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Can't tax your way out of a hole (and don't tell me Clinton did it... Clinton was gifted with a once in a lifetime transformative technology that created a boom that grew the US out of the early 90s economic malaise). The only way out is to grow.

...Good luck to us on that.

ty is like the designer of the titanic bragging that the lifeboats that were put on the boat worked fine.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They're not adding tax cuts, however. Those tax cuts are already in place. There's no explosion. There's continuation of the status quo.

C'mon. You weren't born yesterday. They would cut taxes more if they could. It's their raison d'etre.

And by the way, the deficit goes up either way. Kick in the tax increases and you'll see damage to the economy (pullbacks in spending and their attendant effects). Tax revenues will drop, and the deficit goes up anyway.

No. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. The loss of revenues from the diminished taxes collected when there is less growth will be far, far less than the lost revenue from collecting less in revenues.

Can't tax your way out of a hole (and don't tell me Clinton did it... Clinton was gifted with a once in a lifetime transformative technology that created a boom that grew the US out of the early 90s economic malaise). The only way out is to grow.

...Good luck to us on that.

Indeed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

ty is like the designer of the titanic bragging that the lifeboats that were put on the boat worked fine.

Sebby, note that I said you should have "a beer" with Hank. His schtick can grow tired by the second or third beer, even if he is basically a nice guy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, note that I said you should have "a beer" with Hank. His schtick can grow tired by the second or third beer, even if he is basically a nice guy.

thanks for having my back my brother.

and sebby Ty was a gov employee, and i bet a good one. and atticus has never been placed into a warning period where he has to perform to a set level to save his job- and that does imply a level of minimal adequacy IMHO.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, note that I said you should have "a beer" with Hank. His schtick can grow tired by the second or third beer, even if he is basically a nice guy.

Yes, best to make plans with him, but stand him up. No offence.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

To me, it looks aggressively small-government, flatter tax focused. This ought to be a Republican wet dream. But from what I can see, they're virtually silent. Fox is more focused on the controversy over a pedophilia guide being sold on Amazon than this.
.

2. I saw Anderson Cooper's 15 minute piece on the Amazon controversy. Fucking moron right wing media hacks at Fox.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

thanks for having my back my brother.

and sebby Ty was a gov employee, and i bet a good one. and atticus has never been placed into a warning period where he has to perform to a set level to save his job- and that does imply a level of minimal adequacy IMHO.

I've met none of the three of you.

(This is in no way waives my right to find you thoroughly unimpressive should that happen. Once confronted with the three inch hair covered mole on my forehead and what some describe as Capote-like speech affectations, you might exercise your option to do the same. I'd only ask you not judge the drooling. Bell's Palsy is an insidious disorder.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

C'mon. You weren't born yesterday. They would cut taxes more if they could. It's their raison d'etre.

No. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. The loss of revenues from the diminished taxes collected when there is less growth will be far, far less than the lost revenue from collecting less in revenues.

Indeed.

But they're not, so it's not part of this discussion. Left to do what they like, the Dems would spend more. But you don't see me criticizing them for that here, in this finite discussion.

That's a projection you cannot support. You have no idea what the removal of that money from the economy would do in terms of decreased economic activity. This economy is amazingly fragile. The negative multiplier effect of any pullback in consumption could create a decrease in revenue far exceeding the tax cuts. This is why even Obama and the Dems, no doubt suppressing a gag reflex, are open to an across the board extension. (By saying this, I am not arguing that tax cuts pay for themselves. I don't buy that any more than you do. But I think this is a unique instance where the lapse of a tax cut could have disastrous results.)

If you agree with my last point, how do reach the conclusion we nevertheless need to roll back all of the Bush tax cuts? (Keep in mind, I'm not GOP Orthodox on this... I personally think that the safe play is to raise the bar to $500-750K.)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I earn <$200K and don't get overtime, period.

Same here. And my salary (and all the other salaries my employer doles out) was just published by a newspaper. I think they're hitting every public entity in the state. Mack Brown, just in case you were wondering, is the highest paid public employee in the state.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But they're not, so it's not part of this discussion. Left to do what they like, the Dems would spend more. But you don't see me criticizing them for that here, in this finite discussion.

That's a projection you cannot support. You have no idea what the removal of that money from the economy would do in terms of decreased economic activity. This economy is amazingly fragile. The negative multiplier effect of any pullback in consumption could create a decrease in revenue far exceeding the tax cuts. This is why even Obama and the Dems, no doubt suppressing a gag reflex, are open to an across the board extension. (By saying this, I am not arguing that tax cuts pay for themselves. I don't buy that any more than you do. But I think this is a unique instance where the lapse of a tax cut could have disastrous results.)

If you agree with my last point, how do reach the conclusion we nevertheless need to roll back all of the Bush tax cuts? (Keep in mind, I'm not GOP Orthodox on this... I personally think that the safe play is to raise the bar to $500-750K.)

The real measure of the tax cuts is what they did for the economy when they were first put in place. The 2001 tax cuts, which were the more significant from a policy perspective, didn't result in any explosion of growth. At best one can argue they kept things from getting worse. There was a burst of growth not long after the 2003 tax cuts, though I think the case for causation is relatively slim and that it likely had more to do with the burst in spending that occured on a more sustained basis over the prior two years.

On the other side, the Clinton bills seem to have had considerable impact on growth in the 90s. Why? (1) Those bills didn't paint with a broad brush - there was not an across the board reduction on capital gains, there was a more significant reduction on gains derived from new investments in targetted industries. (2) Those bills brought tax and spending in line, meaning more debt money was available for businesses instead of the government.

If I had my druthers, I'd rewrite the bush tax provisions to be more like the Clinton ones, and not extend anything as iit stands. But no one will listen to me.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Same here. And my salary (and all the other salaries my employer doles out) was just published by a newspaper. I think they're hitting every public entity in the state. Mack Brown, just in case you were wondering, is the highest paid public employee in the state.

Did they point out that you have four barns?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is the kind of stuff that gets my blood boiling. We pay them for full time work, and yet I see them kicking off early and lounging around on the porch at the Grand. Meanwhile, I have to get in early and leave late just to pay the tuitions, cars, mortgages, servants, liquor bills and other necessities.

You've been posting here for years, and so I feel I've the right to make this criticism: Your strong suit is quick jab snark - fast, clever one liners. Rhetorical hyperbole, particular the ironic variant, does not work for you. Why? I'm not sure, but I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that rhetorical hyperbole only works when it's delivered from a position of power. One can bash the govt with it because the govt is a perfect foil - it's admittedly ineffective, bloated, corrupt, wasteful and a notorious magnet for middle management functionaries who'd die in the private sector. When you use it to bash a person for having more money than you think he ought to, it sounds envious. And when everybody knows you are a member of exactly the income strata you'e whining about, it sounds like remnant self-loathing you failed to work out of your system during the phase of junior high where Karl Marx made sense.

(I don't bitch about the govt. I look down my nose at it. There's a difference.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The real measure of the tax cuts is what they did for the economy when they were first put in place. The 2001 tax cuts, which were the more significant from a policy perspective, didn't result in any explosion of growth. At best one can argue they kept things from getting worse. There was a burst of growth not long after the 2003 tax cuts, though I think the case for causation is relatively slim and that it likely had more to do with the burst in spending that occured on a more sustained basis over the prior two years.

On the other side, the Clinton bills seem to have had considerable impact on growth in the 90s. Why? (1) Those bills didn't paint with a broad brush - there was not an across the board reduction on capital gains, there was a more significant reduction on gains derived from new investments in targetted industries. (2) Those bills brought tax and spending in line, meaning more debt money was available for businesses instead of the government.

If I had my druthers, I'd rewrite the bush tax provisions to be more like the Clinton ones, and not extend anything as iit stands. But no one will listen to me.

I couldn't agree more with the first paragraph. I recall many thoughtful criticisms of the bluntness of Bush's cuts. My cynical suspicion is that, like Emmanuel, Rove saw no reason to "waste the crisis." Why not give a big wet kiss to GOP voters when you have the excellent cover of it all being done as stimulus?

Same goes for the second. I think Obama is royally fucking up with these dumb tax cuts aimed at causing employers to hire. The money is better spent encouraging growth in emerging industries that will organically hire on their own as they grow. The voting public, however, too goddamned stupid to realize the President cannot create jobs, demands a "jobs bill." Cornered, Obama gives the fools something that sounds like a quick cure.

On your final point, I'd probably do the same.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You've been posting here for years, and so I feel I've the right to make this criticism: Your strong suit is quick jab snark - fast, clever one liners. Rhetorical hyperbole, particular the ironic variant, does not work for you. Why? I'm not sure, but I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that rhetorical hyperbole only works when it's delivered from a position of power. One can bash the govt with it because the govt is a perfect foil - it's admittedly ineffective, bloated, corrupt, wasteful and a notorious magnet for middle management functionaries who'd die in the private sector. When you use it to bash a person for having more money than you think he ought to, it sounds envious. And when everybody knows you are a member of exactly the income strata you'e whining about, it sounds like remnant self-loathing you failed to work out of your system during the phase of junior high where Karl Marx made sense.

(I don't bitch about the govt. I look down my nose at it. There's a difference.)

I blame myself. If I'd kept up the gilligan posts you would have perspective of how much weight and thought to give him.

or maybe, should I blame the networks for cancelling the show and limiting my raw material?