Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems.
I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt.
If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ...
The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks.
But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
The wars, yes. The tax cuts, arguably no, if you accept Laffer's theory (which I do).
Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems.
I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt.
If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ...
The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks.
But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
The wars, yes. The tax cuts, arguably no, if you accept Laffer's theory (which I do).
I love how these things become completely separate and exclusive entities in your mind. Not expenditures and revenue, each completely dependent on the other, which is reality.
Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems.
I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt.
If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ...
The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks.
But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
The wars, yes. The tax cuts, arguably no, if you accept Laffer's theory (which I do).
I love how these things become completely separate and exclusive entities in your mind. Not expenditures and revenue, each completely dependent on the other, which is reality.
It's pretty easy to do if you accept that money is more efficiently allocated and spent in the private sector than by the government, leading to increased economic growth.
Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems.
I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt.
If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ...
The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks.
But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
The wars, yes. The tax cuts, arguably no, if you accept Laffer's theory (which I do).
I sort of do, or at least the concept makes sense in theory, but the Laffer maximum is thought to occur at around 60-70%. We're nowhere near that.
Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems.
I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt.
If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ...
The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks.
But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
The wars, yes. The tax cuts, arguably no, if you accept Laffer's theory (which I do).
I sort of do, or at least the concept makes sense in theory, but the Laffer maximum is thought to occur at around 60-70%. We're nowhere near that.
Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems.
I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt.
If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ...
The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks.
But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
The wars, yes. The tax cuts, arguably no, if you accept Laffer's theory (which I do).
I sort of do, or at least the concept makes sense in theory, but the Laffer maximum is thought to occur at around 60-70%. We're nowhere near that.
The Laffer maximum refers to maximizing government revenue, not maximizing economic output.
Yes I know.
The tax cuts wouldn't be a contributor to our fiscal issues if they occurred to the right of the Laffer maximum, since then those tax "cuts" would actually cause revenue to rise. However, since we're to the left of the Laffer maximum, then the tax cuts contributed to the fiscal deficit.
Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems.
I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt.
If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ...
The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks.
But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
The wars, yes. The tax cuts, arguably no, if you accept Laffer's theory (which I do).
I sort of do, or at least the concept makes sense in theory, but the Laffer maximum is thought to occur at around 60-70%. We're nowhere near that.
The Laffer maximum refers to maximizing government revenue, not maximizing economic output.
Yes I know.
The tax cuts wouldn't be a contributor to our fiscal issues if they occurred to the right of the Laffer maximum, since then those tax "cuts" would actually cause revenue to rise. However, since we're to the left of the Laffer maximum, then the tax cuts contributed to the fiscal deficit.
Well yes, if you accept that we're on the left side of the curve, then the tax cut will add to the deficit.
I just don't really get that Democrats are weak on jobs.
I mean look at Romney and Santorum. Santorum can't last a month without derailing into porn, contraception, or gays. He's not exactly a strong candidate at all for jobs, because he's clearly said that he cares very deeply about these issues which apparently no else cares about. Romney doesn't really seem that strong on jobs either. The whole Bain Capital thing doesn't seem to impress anyone. The Auto Bailout seems pretty popular, and Romney doesn't get points there. Quite frankly, I don't think Romney is very strong on jobs.
Obama, likewise, doesn't seem that strong about jobs. I don't really get why you think he seems particularly weak. If anything he's far more positive and hopeful and inspirational about the economy in general, where Romney doesn't seem to be. But then there's Biden. The thing is, the Jobs talk is all about the middle class income voters. And Biden is enormously strong in that regard. He's a lot more rough and tumble and he gets economic ideas across very easily, something Obama lacks.
It's a little hard to predict on the Jobs talk will go over after the primary. But Democrats just aren't that weak in that regard.
Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems.
I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt.
If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ...
The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks.
But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
The wars, yes. The tax cuts, arguably no, if you accept Laffer's theory (which I do).
I sort of do, or at least the concept makes sense in theory, but the Laffer maximum is thought to occur at around 60-70%. We're nowhere near that.
The Laffer maximum refers to maximizing government revenue, not maximizing economic output.
Yes I know.
The tax cuts wouldn't be a contributor to our fiscal issues if they occurred to the right of the Laffer maximum, since then those tax "cuts" would actually cause revenue to rise. However, since we're to the left of the Laffer maximum, then the tax cuts contributed to the fiscal deficit.
Well yes, if you accept that we're on the left side of the curve, then the tax cut will add to the deficit.
The US _is_ on the left side of the curve. There is almost zero support in the academic world for the idea that it is on the right side of the curve. Republicans will tell you that it is, but this claim certainly isn't supported by any serious academic work. To quote Joel Slemrod from the University of Michigan on at what tax rate the curve peaks (link):
I would venture that the answer is 60% or higher.... The idea that we're on the wrong side has almost no support among academics who have looked at this. Evidence doesn't suggest we're anywhere near the other end of the Laffer curve....
In fact, academic research points towards increasing taxes to increase revenue (meaning the US is to the left of the curve and not yet at the peak). See for example the recent article "The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations" published by Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (vol. 25, No 4, fall 2011, pp. 165-190, available here).
Wow! you guys actually know some economics?!?! in two other threads i was involved it there was just a bunch of e-hippies talking about how corporations are evil lol
On March 23 2012 21:16 xavra41 wrote: Wow! you guys actually know some economics?!?! in two other threads i was involved it there was just a bunch of e-hippies talking about how corporations are evil lol
Well, don't get too excited. It's just the laffer curve. Muslim math (heebie-jeebies)
What it means to me is 'how much can we suck out of them before they die"
damn it one of the e hippies followed me T.T en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law On a more relevant note it is a shame that social economics is so prevalent in both parties. It's not that I don't think it works i just think that government is too incompetent.
On March 23 2012 21:16 xavra41 wrote: Wow! you guys actually know some economics?!?! in two other threads i was involved it there was just a bunch of e-hippies talking about how corporations are evil lol
Well, don't get too excited. It's just the laffer curve. Muslim math (heebie-jeebies)
What it means to me is 'how much can we suck out of them before they die"
Yeah, that's basically it, which is why I originally referred to his theories rather than the curve (the idea being that tax cuts spur the economy such that increases in the tax base more than offset any short term loss of revenue from the tax cuts).
On March 23 2012 23:13 xavra41 wrote: damn it one of the e hippies followed me T.T en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law On a more relevant note it is a shame that social economics is so prevalent in both parties. It's not that I don't think it works i just think that government is too incompetent.
Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems.
I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt.
If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ...
The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks.
But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
The wars, yes. The tax cuts, arguably no, if you accept Laffer's theory (which I do).
This is actually lol. Here's a relevant report by the CBO...
After 10 years, "increased" revenues from a 10% across the board tax cut would only offset a maximum of approx. 30%, IF you assume that markets behave "perfectly", which is an extremely dubious assumption.
EPT
