It's the Economy, stupid - Languishing & Lingering after the Great Recession

Stimulus? Economic policies? Or Quantitative easing?

Timeline of US Fed quantitative easing CCTV News - CNTV English

 

All of the above and threatened by proposed Republican austerity program and unwillingness to even consider a more balanced approach to debt reduction.

 

So, for example, you would pretend Quantitative Easing is an issue to be ignored because I referenced it? The issue is the center of economic debate, but it does not fit with the liberal narrative of Keynesian economics and the President's call for higher tax rates.

What should we say about your analysis?

 

In fact, Obama has called for (marginally) higher tax rates on the top along with spending cuts (already having cut more than any recent president), including those opposed by his own party (eg chained CPI for Social Security)

 

What has stimulus given us in terms of economic growth?
What economic policies are you talking about?
QE may be keeping rates low and the Dow at record levels, but at what future cost?

So, yes, someone in Washington has to look at these things. We are lucky Europe and other places are in crisis, the US dollar is a safe haven. If rates spike the debt will not be sustainable and we risk stagflation or hyper-inflation.

But, you know me, If I post the above it can not be seriously considered because I must be the only one looking at this in the manner I presented.

 

But I suppose you believe that investing in infrastructure, education, R&D or programs that provide a temporary safety net for working Americans looking for a job would hurt economic growth more than a 2% tax increase on the top 1% of taxpayers

 

Didn't your taxes go up at the first of the year? Did we realize any real spending cuts, i.e. spending less than the previous year?

 

Yep, everyone's payroll taxes increased after the one year, temporary reduction and real spending cuts means the federal budget growing at the lowest annual rate in the last 20+ years.

So what? You still have offered nothing to support supply side or austerity.

 

anyone who has read my posts would know what I think in regard to the above.

I think government spending is excessive, and in many (not all) instances inefficient and wasteful. I think government should seek the "optimal" tax rate (maximizing dollars collected, minimizing harm to the economy). Personally I support a consumption tax, to accurately tax those who actually spend the most, but I realize this will not happen any time soon - so I support tax simplification - the elimination of special deductions and loopholes while lowering overall rates.
--- merged: May 3, 2013 at 12:30 PM ---

Supply side economics would support the government seeking the "optimal' tax rate or structure. The Laffer Curve suggests there is such a rate in theory. Reaonable people can disagree on the actual shape of the curve, but there is a curve. Supply side would support the efficient allocation of capital. If government is more efficient government should tax the capital and allocate it, if the private sector is more efficient taxes should be cut and the private sector should allocate the capital. We are in the condition where cutting taxes would be best for economic growth.

 

Effective tax rates for the top taxpayers are at the lowest rates since the early 80s and the recent Bush reductions did not result in anything but marginal economic growth at best and significant increase income inequality at worst.

And you want to cut taxes more for the top and believe it will trickle down when it never has in the past?

 

$2.9 trillion in QE and counting. Is that not data? Are you "cherry picking"? Are you suggesting in the numerous posts I make you don't see data supporting my point of view? Or are you just making stuff up? Oh, wait I get it, anytime I post data, as roach might say in - two words rather than numerous words, the data is b.s.

 

ace, dear, you flatter yourself.
as usual.

 

Our tax system is broken. I suggest we fix it. Is it your view that it is o.k. to keep patching a broken system? You can manipulate the nominal rates all you want, but like you allude to, it is the effective rates that are important. I would suggest even if Obama raised the nominal rate the effective rate would not change. I would prefer dealing with the reality of the problem as opposed to making superficial political points - his base wants the "rich" punished and he want to deliver. Not a good economic policy.
--- merged: May 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM ---

Goes without saying. How come you don't get called on changing the subject? If I recall this is not a thread about Ace and his flaws.

 

I am all for tax reform but not when you frame it as Obama's base wants to punish the rich.

What I want is to maintain a progressive tax system in which the top taxpayers bear the greatest tax burden...and as their wealth increases, their $ tax contributions (not percentage) increase proportionately instead of the reverse as is currently the case.

That is not punishing the rich.

(see charts below)

 

Global capitalism and 21st century fascism - Opinion - Al Jazeera English


there are problems with this essay...but the basic point is worth considering.