How We Got Here
-
Kevin Drum adds:
Even if we absolve George W. Bush of responsibility for those "economic and technical factors" — mainly the Great Recession — his policies are still responsible for a turnaround of about $8.4 trillion in the deficit projections. In other words, if we had merely hung onto the policies of the Clinton administration, paid for things like Medicare Part D, and avoided the disastrous war in Iraq, we would have entered the Great Recession with one of the lowest debt levels in the advanced world. That in turn would probably have kept the housing bubble a bit smaller than it was, making the Great Recession a little less catastrophic, and would have given us more headroom for fiscal stimulus in 2008 and 2009, which also would have reduced both the length and depth of the recession.
But none of that happened thanks to Republican economic policies. This year, they swear they've learned their lesson and will never do this again. Do you believe them?
-
But Bush was pres for eight years and we had 9/11.
Obamao has only had 3.5 years, and on pace, is a far worse disaster
in terms of the fed deficit.
It's a false equivalency.
And once pres, Reagan was bashed all over the place for the economy...
despite Carter's screwing it up and cutting the military retirements and funding etc.....
back then, Dems said "the buck rests and stops at the current pres's desk"
-
Anyhoo...
The point being that the "Obama is spending us into oblivion" outcry is simply not accurate. It's not about Obama's big government ways, or his out of control spending. It's about the effects of the tax cuts, the wars, the health care, the entitlement spending, and the effects of the recession. That's the deficit. That's the debt. If you want to ding Obama for anything, it's re-upping a lot of what Bush did. But that's a little hard to do when you're lining up to vote for a guy who wants to cut taxes even more than Bush, and spend even more on defense.
-
Anyways...
that goes back to the debate that lowering taxes works well for the economy.
vs
raising taxes out the wazoo to spend more..... hurts the economy.
still doesn't solve the spending problem
But throwing red ink in terms of billions and billions... into solyndra and brazil oil drilling.....
and Egypt...and on "shovel ready jobs" that busted, and the money to GM that Ford didn't need....
and mortgage bailouts that really didn't fix the problem either...
Obamao throws money at problems right out of a leftist hs students fancy.
It's all blown up in Obamao's face. Including corrupt holder and the "Fast and Furious" anti 2nd Amendment scandal...
and the Obamao wh grave national security scandals. both which are blowing up more and more every day...
that's how we got HERE.
And most of America wants to go THERE. With another pres that at least, knows the value of large fortunes of money that the
U.S. does get in terms of taxes.
Just once - I want to see a flat tax. Everybody pays the same. Make more, pay more - same rate. And scarew the IRS.
-
Cal, normally I don't like to engage you, and for obvious reasons, but you say that lower taxes are good for the economy, and Obama raised them and spent the money on nonsense and that's what hurt the economy.
Except that Obama didn't raise everyone's taxes. He lowered everyone's taxes. He kept Bush's tax cuts. He added additional cuts to payroll taxes and for small businesses. A third of the stimulus bill - that you hate - was made up of tax cuts. Clearly, if lower taxes were the key to economic success we'd be having lots of success right now. because that's what Obama did in reality, as opposed to the version in your fantasy world.
Just letting you know. That is all.
-
Cal, normally I don't like to engage you, and for obvious reasons, but you say that lower taxes are good for the economy, and Obama raised them and spent the money on nonsense and that's what hurt the economy.
Except that Obama didn't raise everyone's taxes. He lowered everyone's taxes. He kept Bush's tax cuts. He added additional cuts to payroll taxes and for small businesses. A third of the stimulus bill - that you hate - was made up of tax cuts. Clearly, if lower taxes were the key to economic success we'd be having lots of success right now. because that's what Obama did in reality, as opposed to the version in your fantasy world.
Just letting you know. That is all.
Cal, normally I don't like to engage you, and for obvious reasons, but you say that lower taxes are good for the economy, and Obama raised them and spent the money on nonsense and that's what hurt the economy.
Except that Obama didn't raise everyone's taxes. He lowered everyone's taxes. He kept Bush's tax cuts. He added additional cuts to payroll taxes and for small businesses. A third of the stimulus bill - that you hate - was made up of tax cuts. Clearly, if lower taxes were the key to economic success we'd be having lots of success right now. because that's what Obama did in reality, as opposed to the version in your fantasy world.
Just letting you know. That is all.
But, but, but Obamao is a commu-fascismist!
-
Except that Obama didn't raise everyone's taxes. He lowered everyone's taxes. He kept Bush's tax cuts. He added additional cuts to payroll taxes and for small businesses. A third of the stimulus bill - that you hate - was made up of tax cuts. Clearly, if lower taxes were the key to economic success we'd be having lots of success right now. because that's what Obama did in reality, as opposed to the version in your fantasy world.
Heck
***************************
Some points to educate you, if you are receptive to learning anything:
1. I never talked about Obamao having raised taxes. He wants to, he is planning to. Of course he kept Bush's tax cuts, he's cha - he knows better than to hammer down the Bush tax cuts - the economy would freak in a bad way. He knows it - but after he thinks he'll win the pres again (fat chance now)... he will hammer down. Everybody but you libs know it.
2. Obamao has railed against the well to do companies - and the companies will not stick their necks out until he is gone. They are playing investment in R&D, and capital expenses
close to the vest - and Obamao just won't shut the hell up about them. That's a built in failure of his presidency. The call for higher taxes on the wealthy? Dream on, Heck, if you really
think the rich don't pay much of our income tax in the U.S.
3. The money to solyndra - nice aversion as usual. that was what, a half BILLION in WASTE? for what? His re-election. Big mistake, big waste. He throws money - our taxes -
around in the most stupid ass directions. You know he does. How does that help the economy?
"shovel ready jobs" ??? That was a huge, huge waste, and and a huge disaster for Obamao.
4. You don't "engage" me because you don't make enough serious, honest sense, to ever have a chance of getting a dem vote out of me.
In that, you are right - it won't happen. I had a lot of trouble wanting to vote for McCain - why the hell would you think I'd vote for your not very brilliant Obamao?
Seriously.
5. You can't lower taxes, and turn right around and blow mega billions, even trillions, in lofty but phony advances. The advances aren't advances.
It's just a fraudulent bragging right. Give money to GM, etc, and WE SAVED THE AUTO INDUSTRY? Odd. Ford didn't need saved.
The Dems had total control of both Houses of Congress during Obamao's first two years. Couldn't even mangage a freakin BUDGET.
Hows that hopey changie phony thing workin for ya, Heck?
6. Your old whines of others of us being partisan? Then you were just as, or more than we were, partisan? Come on, now.
7. Obamao is a disaster. Scandals, AG is a disgrace to our country - Fast and Furious, national security leaks that are seriously damaging our
security, and the safety of people in other countries, including our own troops, our effectiveness in the WAR on Terror.
8. Honestly, Heck. Seriously. Do you think it's a Obamao win when they simply change the name of the War on Terror to something else?
I don't think so.
9. You have long since ran cheap shots at me, and others, when we weren't even in a thread. You think that is going to convince others to be
fearful of disagreeinig with you?
10. Read the first nine, darn it.
-
Really Heck, you know responding is pointless.
-
I have a hard time responding to these types of articles because they tend to lack affirmative claims other than "Bush sucked." What target am I shooting at here? Obama wants to raise taxes and has proposed tax hikes. That hits the economy in a very similar manner to currently raising taxes, so pointing out that he signed tax cuts during a recession doesnt really tell us much. He passed a health care bill the cost of which, just like Part D, was disguised and will kick in much later. Much of the cost of his idea of good government is further disguised behind mandates and new regulations - things that require taxpayers to spend money in specific ways but dont show up as part of the federal budget.
So yes, Bush sucked. Yes, many of Obama's critics are misstating and overstating their case. But also, Obama wants to raise taxes, Obama wants to spend more and has mandated new spending, and Obama wants to increase the cost of government imposed on the private sector. Hopefully some of that was responsive, but like I said, I'm never quite sure what the claims are worth targeting in these articles.
-
The articles get posted because at this point, in order to have any chance of getting through the layers of protective casing Republicans have encircled themselves in, you have to post something written by a Republican, preferably one who worked for Reagan. Otherwise, it's just the "librul media, blah, blah." Like Steve said the other day, based on nothing in particular, he just doesn't trust us to be honest. Okay. Well, then here's Bruce Bartlett, one of the few conservatives who hasn't lost his marbles, and who doesn't think tax cuts solve every problem from deficits to herpes. Here he is laying out the numbers on what cost what, and who is responsible for what costs. This is all we're trying to do. Like with those graphs from before, we're just trying to see if anyone can get on board with something other than "Obama's out-of-control spending ruined us" and to see what actually is driving the deficits.
And this? "Obama wants to raise taxes and has proposed tax hikes. That hits the economy in a very similar manner to currently raising taxes." Really? I know what your point is, but this is overstated. First of all, you'd have to specify which hikes you're talking about. And if you're talking about the top rate hike, then you're really overstating things.
Also, what regulations, other than the ones in the health care bill, do you find so onerous?
-
And get in the global warming thread. Let's play.
-
The articles get posted because at this point, in order to have any chance of getting through the layers of protective casing Republicans have encircled themselves in, you have to post something written by a Republican, preferably one who worked for Reagan. Otherwise, it's just the "librul media, blah, blah." Like Steve said the other day, based on nothing in particular, he just doesn't trust us to be honest. Okay. Well, then here's Bruce Bartlett, one of the few conservatives who hasn't lost his marbles, and who doesn't think tax cuts solve every problem from deficits to herpes. Here he is laying out the numbers on what cost what, and who is responsible for what costs. This is all we're trying to do. Like with those graphs from before, we're just trying to see if anyone can get on board with something other than "Obama's out-of-control spending ruined us" and to see what actually is driving the deficits.
And this? "Obama wants to raise taxes and has proposed tax hikes. That hits the economy in a very similar manner to currently raising taxes." Really? I know what your point is, but this is overstated. First of all, you'd have to specify which hikes you're talking about. And if you're talking about the top rate hike, then you're really overstating things.
Also, what regulations, other than the ones in the health care bill, do you find so onerous?
The articles get posted because at this point, in order to have any chance of getting through the layers of protective casing Republicans have encircled themselves in, you have to post something written by a Republican, preferably one who worked for Reagan. Otherwise, it's just the "librul media, blah, blah." Like Steve said the other day, based on nothing in particular, he just doesn't trust us to be honest. Okay. Well, then here's Bruce Bartlett, one of the few conservatives who hasn't lost his marbles, and who doesn't think tax cuts solve every problem from deficits to herpes. Here he is laying out the numbers on what cost what, and who is responsible for what costs. This is all we're trying to do. Like with those graphs from before, we're just trying to see if anyone can get on board with something other than "Obama's out-of-control spending ruined us" and to see what actually is driving the deficits.
And this? "Obama wants to raise taxes and has proposed tax hikes. That hits the economy in a very similar manner to currently raising taxes." Really? I know what your point is, but this is overstated. First of all, you'd have to specify which hikes you're talking about. And if you're talking about the top rate hike, then you're really overstating things.
Also, what regulations, other than the ones in the health care bill, do you find so onerous?
You mightve heard of Dodd-Frank. Put that and ACA together and you've got thousands of pages of unintelligible regulatory mandates. It's a problem. And it is costing an incredible amount of money already.
Closing corporate loopholes without lowering rates, raising taxes on cap gains and carried interest, raising the top rate (and applying it to a varying group of earners), uncapping payroll taxes, Medicare bonus tax, removing tax deductibility of state taxes... just off the top of my head. And then we end up in the gray area of what he says he wants to do v. what he would do if he had a Democratic Congress. Though I suppose the latter is off the table for the time being.
-
Yes, Dodd-Frank has new regulations in it, and yes sometimes those regulations cost money. That tells us nothing about whether they're good regulations or needlessly expensive. And if you're the banking industry, unintelligible is what you want. You can drive a truck through unintelligible. Complexity is your friend.
I'm not suggesting that we wade through Dodd-Frank and decide whether we need, say, resolution authority and stronger capital requirements and more transparency (sound like good ideas to me) and then discuss what that entails on paper, but saying that a bill designed to address (supposedly) the ways in which we would avert another meltdown of the financial system has regulations in it... well, of course it does.
As for the taxes you listed, I'm just not nearly as convinced - nor do I think the business community is convinced - that these are all just around the corner, or even large enough to hit the economy well before they're even enacted, even if you assumed they would be enacted. Of all the problems with the economy right now, tax hike uncertainty seems pretty far down the list, especially when we're talking about raising top rates on high earners or capital gains bumps. Uncapping payroll taxes isn't happening, and carried interest probably isn't either. These specters aren't what's holding us back. If there's any sense that future taxes are going to have to go up I'd say it comes from the understanding of our fiscal situation, and the knowledge that at some point taxes are going to have to go up. They can do the math just like anyone else can.
My big complaint is that the Democrats don't have their own version of tax reform beyond campaign stunts and Volcker rules, and they really just end up defending the status quo, or adding to it. They're just out of ideas. It's just a party that does interest group politics, and campaign season has only stripped away whatever veneer they'd slapped on that sad reality. There's no vision there. And if Obama doesn't come up with something his supporters can circle around soon I think he may very well lose. I don't think "Republicans want to go back to Bush" and Romney's loathsome personality are going to be enough.
I mean, hire more firefighters and cops and teachers? This is the new big idea? Jesus...
-
One small example:
when Obamao spoke plain out that his plan would make energy prices skyrocket.....
the affect on corps - was concern - and long term apprehension.
That was counter-productive to the goal of getting America back on track.
But all sorts of companies sat back and had to wonder - they would be
seriously hit hugely if that happened. When Obamao spoke of "spreading the wealth"
by going after the wealthy - corporations heard that. That's another example
of Obamao pandering to leftist interests, while making the wrong moves to help the economy.
That's party how we got here. That's on Obamao, because of his own words.
But Heck posted this, and it is excellent stuff:
"My big complaint is that the Democrats don't have their own version of tax reform beyond campaign stunts and Volcker rules, and they really just end up defending the status quo, or adding to it. They're just out of ideas. It's just a party that does interest group politics, and campaign season has only stripped away whatever veneer they'd slapped on that sad reality. There's no vision there. And if Obama doesn't come up with something his supporters can circle around soon I think he may very well lose. I don't think "Republicans want to go back to Bush" and Romney's loathsome personality are going to be enough.
I mean, hire more firefighters and cops and teachers? This is the new big idea? Jesus..."
-
Serious question:
Who among you actually wants to raise cap gains to match the top income tax brackets?
WSS
-
I think capital gains rates should be raised. I don't know what you mean by "to match the top income bracket." I don't know who is proposing that.
-
Isn'the buffet rule exactly that?
to make cap gains equal to your income bracket?
WSS
-
No, it's not.
-
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
So explain to me what is behind the empty suit honking about buffets secretary?
I'll give you time to look up some left wing websites.
WSS
-
It's a 30% tax floor.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login