http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...or-the-jobless

I guess you and Riot can start the crying now...

Except the opinions came out before the bosses position. Ben Bernacke was just interviewed on 60 Minutes, he doesn't agree with you, either.

So please - feel free to post any other economists opinion, supporting that stopping paying unemployment benefits will not slow the economy, increase layoffs, etc.

Now? I started crying when Obama came out and said he'd cave before negotiations began. He may yet stick at 1 million (which I think is the most he should go), but he already said he'd extend for everyone, it's just a matter of length.

Yes, I do not agree with that at all. Bad, bad for expanding deficit as an unfunded tax cut. Obviously doesn't build any jobs, because that's the tax rate in effect now, that we've had since 2001-2003. We've lost 800,000 jobs on that tax rate and gone into a major recession after a threatened depression. Not much "business building" there, is there?

How's that tax cut supposed to be so awesome for growing the economy again?

You have very unique financial ideas, not shared by most economists. Not shared by any economist I've seen, but I'm sure there are some out there. Can you quote any?

Are you seriously saying that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for a global economic calamity? The Bush tax cuts caused the collapse of the housing markets and caused finanical companies to make bad investmets? Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the debacle of fannie mae and freddie mac?

No, Chuck, tossing people off unemployment and not counting them doesn't change how many people are unemployed, it only changes how many you can see to count.

That's why the "real" numbers of unemployment are higher than reported, always, as Scuds already said.

Yak, yak, yak ... You only have one answer, that anyone that doesn't think like you do is misguided. Stop telling me how bad my argument is when you've been asked for support of yours. I've provided some figures to support mine (you've dismissed them out of hand, of course) we are still waiting for yours.

Where is the support for your argument? Change my mind. Go ahead. Show me something from an economist that says that tossing people off unemployment and taking away that cash infusion doesn't harm and slow the economy, and doesn't cause increased joblessness in other industries as that unemployment money is taken out of circulation.

As I have said before, the economy doesn't operate in a vaccum. let's say that we did eliminate the cuts and raise taxes. Lets say that causes our economy to stagnate as the mega rich move more money offshore or to tax shelters or they stop investing in their businesses, ect. The slowing down of economic growth would most certainly cause the extra money supposed to be raised by the cuts to be lower than suggested. Add in tax reciepts overall decreasing as the economy gets worse. Not a good picture.

One underlying reason the Democratic leadership is supporting rasing taxes outside of the liberal agenda of taking from the rich is that they know they need a whole lot more money to support the Obamacare debacle. That money that they would take from the "rich" wouldnt be used to reduce the deficit. Anyone who believes that is beyond naive.

You seriously got that out of what I said? LOL - no, that's not what I said.

Geeshus freekin' cripes. What drugs are you on?

Show me how that tax rate to the wealthy helped grow jobs and the economy since 2001 and 2003.

Adam Smith could rise from the dead and not be able to change your mind.

You got nothing. Got it.

You cant say that we have lost jobs since 2003 and simply blame one thing, the Bush tax cuts. Again, there are so many factors that it is silly to blame one particular thing. I could counter that perhaps we would have lost 2 million jobs without them. Naturally my argument would be silly as well so i wont go there.

Why would you guess that outcome? I don't see much support for that supposition.

The tax rate on the mega-rich is going from 36% back to 39.6%, and is the tax rate they had during the boom years of the Clinton administration. The practical rate of the mega-rich is more like 17% average due to their massive deductions.

The reversion back to the normal tax rates equals about 100,000 per one million dollars, BEFORE deductions and adjusted gross income determination.

Surveys have shown the mega rich already do not infuse any extra money into consumerism or capitalism, it's extra = thus they save it, invest it.

Why would you think that small shift would cause the mega-rich to totally alter their historical behaviours, thus cause our economy to stagnate, let alone move money offshore, tax shelters, stop investing?

The only thing that increased when the tax rates dropped in 2001 and 2003 was the mega-rich saving more of the extra money they got.

Seriously I posted a very good piece on why extending the tax cuts for everyone was a positive thing and you dismissed it out of hand as theoretical. Now you want me to provide theoreticl arguments to counter your theoretical arguments? It is pointless to try to debate with you anyway.

You keep posting hysterical rants about how bad and dumb and out of touch and evil the GOP is for not extending the unemployment benefits when it is pretty much a given that they are simply using them as a tactic to get something they want (the tax cut extention). They use something the Dems want to get something they want. The cutting spending to match the benefits was just rhetoric.

Are you suggesting that the tax rate was responsible for the "boom years"?

And if you arent, why would raising tax rates be a good idea in decidedly not boom years?

And what exactly qualifies one as "mega-rich"? Certainly a person who makes $251000 a year isnt "mega-rich" right?

I didn't do that, and do not think that. I simply pointed out the truth, that the tax rates in question for the wealthiest 2% of Americans have been the rates present through this last historical near great depression and great recession.

As keeping these rates as they are, and not raising the gross rate 3.6% (and remember that is not adjusted rate after deductions, not the practical rate of 17% or so the wealthiest average) - on the top 2% of wealthiest Americans has been deemed essential to our economy, surely there is some way that conclusion was arrived at, some way to measure the amount of this tax rates contribution to growth within the economy, in spite of the toilet the entire economy fell into. That's not too complex an operation, especially in retrospect. There must have been present exactly what is being promised now: increases in business capital investment, etc.

The Christian Science news piece quoting politicians? Is that what you are referring to?

Nope. Just noting those were the rates present when a budget deficit was converted to a budget surplus, and yeah, having income helps to do that.

You were the one to first use the term here. What did you mean by it?

Did you read the Christian science thing? it simply talks about a deal looming on extending the tax cuts and the unemployment benefits.

You cant just mention one thing and then say you didnt. The inference is clear.

then why not say all of that? It is inconsequential since there is no tech bubble looming that the economy can attach itself to in the near future.

I asked you what your version is since you just used it in the context of people making 250k or above.

And the best part of that is showing how our income from the wealthy will increase, thus help cut our deficit.

Are you posting that in support of this contention?:

"As I have said before, the economy doesn't operate in a vaccum. let's say that we did eliminate the cuts and raise taxes. Lets say that causes our economy to stagnate as the mega rich move more money offshore or to tax shelters or they stop investing in their businesses, ect. The slowing down of economic growth would most certainly cause the extra money supposed to be raised by the cuts to be lower than suggested. Add in tax reciepts overall decreasing as the economy gets worse. Not a good picture."

No, you took the wrong inference, and I corrected your misunderstanding.

Yeah, that's why I asked you what you were referring to, because that wasn't "a good article in support".

No I didn't. I was referring to YOUR reference about the mega-rich, what YOU said about moving money offshore, etc.

Are you denying that tax receipts increased after cutting taxes?

Here's my bottom line: We have a huge deficit.

The vast majority of it is due to three things that President Bush II oversaw (he entered his Presidency with a fast-decreasing deficit in progress, he chose not to maintain that course)

1) unfunded - two wars

2) unfunded - two tax cuts 2001 and 2003, with the largest percentage cuts for the wealthiest

3) unfunded - the single largest Medicare entitlement ever given (prescription drug change)

To get out of the hole created by the hugely expensive, unfunded mandates above, we need to cut our spending, and increase our income.

The best way to immediately increase our income is to let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, as they were designed to.

But we are in a deep recession, thus probably best to not make those of lower income - lets say $250,000 per year and less - have a tax increase right now. Heck, I'd even go with Schumer's one million a year.

The wealthiest 2% can revert to their previous levels with no harm to the economy. They can have their tax cut back in 5 years if we are doing well (we should go to a flat income tax one day). Meanwhile, we get a huge cash infusion into our budget deficit - $700 trillion over 10 years. That's a very good start.

:zz: Beyond obviously not, because my first line was: And the best part of that is showing how our income from the wealthy will increase, thus help cut our deficit.

our income from the wealthy, = increased tax receipts. As shown in your article. Having those receipts back would be awesome.

Here's my plan that makes sense and is bi-partisan. We revert back to GWB's 'over inflated' budget (of course w/inflation considerations) as the starting point. Then based on the tax basis before GW raise taxes every tax reversion/continuation of a dollar taxed will be met with a dollar cut from WHATEVER can be cut! Simple.......700 Billion taxed = 700 Billion cut that equals 1.4 Trillion for American ctizens That's how stimulus money works. Win-win again.

DOH!!!!! Again DOH!!!!!


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-accord

DOH !! Back atcha. Two different things. Climategate is not the Copenhagen Accord. Yes, the "Climategate" science was found completely sound by multiple independent examinations.

Yea nothing in common :zz:

OBA wouldn't stand up to a squirrel. Blinks each time. He n' Carter gunna fight it out for the most female President ever. Do you really think most DEMS are gunna care who gets elected President? I mean, he never acts like he is the president. He acts like the Republicans' House Boy. WTF is he gunna run on? Extending Oprah's tax break? 1 term. It's over for this woman. What old White Dude is next? No matter what, people aren't gunna show up for someone that won't fight for stuff they say needs to be done. He said we can't afford to extend it, and now he'll extend it. Is there anything this loser will stand up n' fight for? All he does is lose. Get owned. Lose. Lose. What percentage of males gunna vote for this wimp in 2012? I don't think I can vote for this guy again. I can't see the point in watching him give in, n' get politically raped for another 4 years. Miracle he could make kids. Funny thing is, I don't think DEMS will filabuster like the Reps been doing. How did we get the tax break in the 1st place? Base ain't coming out for this guy. Ain't no way. Won't fight. Vick would of quickly killed this type.

Well said..
:tro:

Anyone notice that they are gunna agree to spend the most possible, and pay for it the least possible? Money spent on unemployment checks, but won't even increase taxes on millionaires. That was the least responsible thing they could do. You telling me this OBA guy ever had any kind of financial discipline? The wife has got to be in charge of that family's shyt.

Far be it from me to praise Obama but hasn't there a lot of complaining by the left that the GOP wasn't willing to work with the President? And now that he is compromising, the left howls at Obama in discontent?

Oh that's right, it is a one way street that they want us to travel down.

I find it amusing reading about the unnamed liberals in the House threatening to not honor the Senate and Presidents deal. Their love of the progressive agenda and hatred of "the rich" are so great they they are willing to be obstructionist toward their own President and with seemingly little regard for the middle class and unemployed they supposedly give a damn about.

Before you say that the GOP wouldnt make the deal without concessions "for millionaires" lets not forget that the head Democrat in the Senate and the Democratic President signed off on the deal that the liberals are now whining about. Remember that the voices on the left spouting off are the ones that arent up for election in 2012 or are in districts/states where they are practically unbeatable. This should bring to light that the far left cares about nothing but their desire to promote thier agenda regardless of the consequences.

The entire episode proves one thing for sure. Obama sees that pandering to the left hasn't gotten him very far (he got elected for the same reason that Reid got reelected, terrible opponents) and is going to kill his chances for reelection unless he moves closer to that center where Riot and friends always claimed that he was.

Only chance Obama gets relected is an dramatic improvement in the economy (Not going to happen) or the Republicans counter with Sarah Palin.

You're ignoring that the GOP hasn't compromised in 2 years, and the GOP still hasn't compromised one whit, while Obama compromises before negotiations begin, then does it again. Compromise takes two sides. The GOP has yet to step up in two years.

Yes, the left is quite fed up with Obama giving in over and over again to the GOP, and he'll face a progressive primary challenge if he doesn't turn it around.

Scuds: Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 got passed in the first place because the compromise with the Dems was the sunset date on the taxes.

We're broke. All the tax cuts should expire. We're in a recession. If anyone gets a tax cut, it should be the lowest earners, not the richest 2% in the country. That is so beyond absurd it's unbelievable. That tiny tax increase will provide 700 trillion to lower the deficit over 10 years. We need that money.

That makes no sense. The more progressive are threatening to obstruct their President because not because of your imagined and absurd "hatred of the rich" (that's hilarious - you guys are good at playing victims, aren't you?) but because the President threw our deficit under the bus with the extension of tax cuts for the richest Americans, he put out that he'd give that up before negotiations even began (which infuriated his base), and the Pres tied unemployment benefits to the tax cuts, when the party majority absolutely wanted it kept separately.

Just going by what these "unnamed liberals" (they are not anonymous) Democrats have said about it in public.

The GOP old guard has already attacked Palin several times this past two weeks calling her incompetent publically. If Palin blunders ahead on her own she'd never make it through Iowa, because the caucuses are pretty savvy politically.

The GOP candidate isn't elected by caucus as the Dem is in Iowa, but Palin would never survive talking to those folks as she'd have to: you can't mouth platitudes and refuse media interviews with those voters, they are too educated and take their politics very seriously.