I hope you’ve enjoyed our National Theater Company’s recent production of “The Debt Ceiling Crisis” as much we enjoyed performing it for you on a world stage. Don’t forget to watch the movie version sequel coming this January!
If the definition of a compromise is something that most folks don’t like, then the $2.4 trillion debt-ceiling deal worked out over the weekend by President Barack Obama and GOP leaders in Congress is a resounding success.
As details of the framework began to leak early Sunday, the far wings of each party quickly rejected the compromise as capitulation. Democrats angrily noted that the plan was all spending cuts and no revenue increases. MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group, panned the deal and called on Congress to “pass a clean debt ceiling bill that doesn’t force the middle class and the poor to bear the brunt of this crisis.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, worried that the deal left open the door to revenue increases and could lead to steep defense cuts. “Republican Leaders are asking their members to accept tax increases or massive defense cuts and senior anger right before the election,” blogged Erick Erickson, editor of the conservative website RedState.com.
Clearly, Tony winning writing and acting with a surprise, twist ending like this that is all illusion:
Conversely, the one clear winner from all this seems to be President Obama. If the bill passes, he can now claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism – a surefire defense to ubiquitous Republican accusations of socialism and big government. If the debt ceiling were breached and the economy tanked, he likely would’ve borne the greatest political price. But by swooping in and making the deal at the last minute, Obama can say he saved the day.
| |
#26
A MUCH better song for the national anthem:
Sam Cooke’s “Wonderful World”
…Don’t know much about history. Don’t know much biology. Don’t know much about a science book. Don’t know much about the french I took…
#9. How disrespectful of you regarding the presidential asshole comment. I hope you dont speak to your spawn like that.
Anyway, you clearly missed Mitt Romney bellyaching how he can’t support the compromise because just maybe, perhaps possible, a chance, a possibility, a thought might arise that the Bush gift tax cuts and the military would be on the table in 2012.
Michele Bachman had her period and equally disgusted.
They are both competing for biggest cunt.
I am very disgusted as you but for the right reasons.
#14 why are you speaking on grown up topics? Reid’s vote was procedural but that would be over your sheeple head,
#10 “Ronald Reagan: “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.””
Want to go look at a chart describing the national debt by Presidential term? Here’s one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
How about I reformat Mr. I-can’t-recall’s words?
The solution to doing stupid things is not to stop doing things, but to stop being stupid.
I reject that chart.
It shows JFK to good advantage yet he’s one of those evil tax cutters Bobbo is always warning us about.
# 31 msbpodcast said:
“You don’t want to be the party in power during the shit storm that is the decline and fall of the USofA from a world power to a third-world has-been.”
You’d be surprised.
There was no shortage of Roman senatorial wannabees even after they had voted the CEO “full emergency powers” and made themselves irrelevant. In fact, even after the emperors had gotten into the habit of leading them off in small batches and having them run through with swords.
I’ve never understood the Roman Senate’s motives for making that choice but when I ask my local representative why he won’t impeach Obama for arrogating to himself the war-making power, I don’t get a straight answer. History remembers the Roman Senate basically as an X-rated freak show, I think our modern version is aspiring to the same level of glory.
That’s my opinion.
#39
JFK lowered top marginal rates from the in the 90% range to the 70% range(roughly, too tired to check it exactly).
I can certainly see how rates that high would lead to work-avoidance or tax-evasion on money earned once you’d hit the new bracket.
Current conservatives are ENTIRELY WRONG that the economic incentives on workers are the same at our current tax rates, and that lower rates now would result in increased or comparable government revenues.
Take the fictional case of a government that taxes at a 2% rate. If it HALVES taxes to 1% do you really think economic activity is going to double? Obviously not.
If lowering taxes improves the economy, then how come its not?
Record low taxes, record high profits, crappy economy.
Must not be a magic bullet after all.
#46
I don’t like salary caps. If there is a salary cap the various rates of state taxes is going to make a huge difference where high-skilled people live.
Here is what happened with basketball, and why I predict baseball will NEVER ratify a salary cap: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-income-tax-rates-affect-nba.html
You never answered my questions on your post #3. Passing the debt ceiling did not devalue our currency or cause China to write down our debt. If I’m missing something please tell me.
# 42 chris said:
“Current conservatives are ENTIRELY WRONG that the economic incentives on workers are the same at our current tax rates, and that lower rates now would result in increased or comparable government revenues.”
Hmmmm…
I didn’t know that that was what current conservatives were saying. What’s that got to do with guns, God or gays?
And secondly, how do you know it is ENTIRELY WRONG?
The Reagan tax cuts pretty much confirmed the whole Laffer Curve deal was still in play. But since the congress also went hog-wild with spending – which Reagan never vetoed (probably for the sake of defense spending for good old GE) – the deficit soared.
Consider that every dollar taxed goes into an economic penalty box. Its next use is likely to be counter-productive. It may go to killing and destroying in foreign lands, interfering with the market economy at home, subsidizing useless consumption or it may simply be wasted. Much of this is wealth-destroying and one should also count as a loss the difference between what it costs the state to provide you with something and what it would have cost if you provided it for yourself.
That’s why we Americans have the saying “They govern best that govern least” – and we prove that every day now that we have forgotten it.
# 46 ECA said:
“FORGET min wage..erase it. Make a MAX/TOP wage. That will control Many things in this country.”
I think under Islam, you are taxed according to your total wealth rather than annual income.
We should try that.
I don’t know if I care that they pay, but how cool would it be if they left?
#48 “The Reagan tax cuts pretty much confirmed the whole Laffer Curve deal was still in play.”
How? Where’s the beef?
“one should also count as a loss the difference between what it costs the state to provide you with something and what it would have cost if you provided it for yourself.”
Can I really provide roads, public order, primary schooling, a military, public health, and strategic tech investments all by myself? Wow, I feel so empowered!
“That’s why we Americans have the saying “They govern best that govern least” – and we prove that every day now that we have forgotten it.”
Let’s ask Somalia how they like being governed the least. That image of ‘every man an island’ looks a lot less compelling once you add a little common sense.
Your quote, which is from Henry David Thoreau, is meaningless. Great, the dude went to live by a pond and have deep thoughts. That kind of practical experience makes him especially relevant 150 years later when NOBODY has ever followed his example.
If you want to duel with other people’s words how about: “I do not care if the cat is black or white, what matters is it catches mice”-Deng Xiaoping
Of course, who cares about practical results when we are all as pure as the driven snow?
#36, How disrespectful of you regarding the presidential asshole comment.
So, now it’s disrespectful to speak the truth?
Scooter, you ain’t seen disrespectful yet.
And if you think I’m a Romney backer, you are barking up the wrong tree. That’s something you just can’t seem to grasp is it? I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I actually think for myself.
#35, FTW!
Chris, you can take a “nasal spray” point on that one.
#42, Current conservatives are ENTIRELY WRONG that the economic incentives on workers are the same at our current tax rates, and that lower rates now would result in increased or comparable government revenues.
I would have to disagree with that (your disagreement — a double negative here).
A good example, a sandbox experiment if you will, is the sudden increase in gas prices. Like a tax, people suddenly found they had less and less money to spend. The economy suffered for it. Granted, it wasn’t the only thing that caused the recession, but I don’t think I have to prove it made things worse.
And some dude called The Voice showed some pretty good numbers awhile back on this blog showing just that exact thing.
I was actually surprised at the findings. Even with two downturns, Bush II still managed to bring in a higher percentage of GDP in revenue.
Before you all go canonizing Reagan, you had better take an actual look at his record for raising debt (% GDP or straight %) and the number of times he raised the debt ceiling.
He started this slide into turd land in a big way. And now the US is totally screwed.
>and the number of times he raised the debt ceiling.
Pres Obama brought this up, about how Demcorats raised the debt ceiling under Reagan 18 times. Here’s the thing, that’s an average of less than 6 months per increase, and a much smaller amount. Why was Obama insisting on a bigger amount and over a year’s worth of deficits?
Derek says: The Reagan tax cuts pretty much confirmed the whole Laffer Curve deal was still in play.
Reagan’s own budget director disagrees. Even at that time, he disagreed.
http://perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002025.htm
Long Stockman article:
http://theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/5760/3/
#44 Odd, they seem to have plenty of money for executive bonuses, buying competitors, buying patents, and lobbying congress.
I’d be ok with a tax strategy that encouraged hiring. Create jobs, expand business, and improve the economy? Pat on the back tax cut.
You fire a whole bunch of people so your books look artificially better to Wall St? Pay your share.
I keep hearing how government cant create jobs or fix the economy, only business can. If that’s really true, hop to it boys. With great tax breaks comes great responsibility.
#57, You fire a whole bunch of people so your books look artificially better to Wall St? Pay your share.
Are you suggesting that companies should be fined for laying people off?
No, I’m saying that if we’re going to keep arguing that these tax breaks are stimulative, then they better start stimulating.
Corps should pay their fair share. If they are contributing to a lively economy and responsibly compensating their workers maybe that burden is lessened.
All the tax breaks in the world can never make up for the fear of investment loss. Usually, companies and investors begin reinvesting once they feel the bottom has been hit. The problem is that Obama’s dream of “transforming America” has made companies and investors fear what he is transforming it to and his spending makes the bottom unclear.
Obama’s dream is nothing that hasn’t been done before, and has failed in every single implementation. Companies and investors both know this. If you create an operating environment that is too expensive and costly, the companies and investors will move to more competitive environments.
Obama’s a great speaker, but he is a complete idiot when it comes to the economy. He has made WAY WAY WAY too many changes in a short time. Even a shitty government can work as long as the operating environment is stable and constant. The problem is that companies and investors really have no idea what next year will bring. Obama keeps changing the outlook almost monthly.
#50, Corps should pay their fair share.
Ah, there’s that funny phrase again.
Who determines what’s fair?
Derek–you confuse the “investment game,” ie: playing the stock market with actual investment which is long term. While the same products are involved, the intention, risks, benefits to society and individuals are totally different.
Playing the market is simply legalized gambling or skimming if you can invest enough in computers and such that provides NO ECONOMIC BENEFIT except to the thieves involved in same.
Actual investment for the purpose of capital formation for long term returns is totally different.
I assume you don’t even confuse/conflat the two on purpose to mislead America. You don’t have to, “$SWallstreettheConJob$$” has already done that for you.
But not for everyone.
Wallstreet-not the economy but a side bet. It should all be illegal as the scam it is.
…..and then so many will confuse this activity with free market capitalism even as they raid the taxpayers pocketbook to keep the bonuses coming.
You think it creates jobs???????
Foolish Hoomans.
#60
“All the tax breaks in the world can never make up for the fear of investment loss.”
Now we’re in agreement. Tax cuts are only going to have a dramatic stimulative benefit at the extreme high end. I also think you’re overstating the business community’s fear of Obama. He is not the crucial factor, and often doesn’t look like much of a factor at all.
#58
“Are you suggesting that companies should be fined for laying people off?”
Essentially yes. In conditions of low demand the government should create demand directly and pay for that using taxes. Counter-cyclical investment can’t crowd out private investment when private investors are on the bench.
Pro-cyclical investment( more gov’t activity when times are good/ less gov’t activity when times are bad) might seem more logical, but actually extends booms and busts. Further, countries that cut government expenditure into an economic downturn tend to have worse results over the long term.
paper that describes this available at http://www.un.org/esa/desa/desalert/cyclical.pdf
#55
“about how Demcorats raised the debt ceiling under Reagan 18 times. ”
Those amazingly sneaky and effective Dems. They are like the Spanish Inquisition, nobody ever expects them. 🙂
# 50 chris said:
“#48 “The Reagan tax cuts pretty much confirmed the whole Laffer Curve deal was still in play.”
How? Where’s the beef?”
I’m sorry, I guess I just assumed you were alive then and could remember that IRS receipts went up.
But in any case, let me introduce you to Wikipedia, it’s way cool:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Reaganomics
# 50 chris said:
“Can I really provide roads, public order, primary schooling, a military, public health, and strategic tech investments all by myself? Wow, I feel so empowered!”
Try to be a little less bipolar. There is a vast middle ground to consider.
You should read “The Law” by Bastiat:
http://fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf
#34..
here is a sample..
The value of your money is based on the GDP.
GDP = XXX
GDP=XXX-the amount of money we just added to it.
Our GDP, used to be very high, as we were a Manufacturing country…WE MADE TONS of things other countries wanted. MOST of which has gone to Other countries now. NOW, we are over pricing our OWN GOODS, to ourselves and to others. And OTHER countries are going to Asia, insted. Our MAIN export at this time, is Food stock. And you have seen the prices at the store.
#49..
it would be a wonderful thing to CUT all the subsidies/tax cuts and such that end up going to corps..and START OVER.
When capitalism isnt working.. LOCK IT DOWN and force the corps to DO IT RIGHT.
Now that we have your evasions out of the way,
how do you know that it is ENTIRELY WRONG?
“Liberals aren`t stupid. It`s just that most of what they know is not true.” — Reagan