The Debt Ceiling

Typo on my part. The numbers are not wrong. Look at the table on the COB letter.

The CBO reported cited that the $2+ trillion in Bush tax cuts were responsible for nearly a third of the accumulated debt in the last 10 years, far more than the stimulus program.

And you ignored the remarks of S&P as well....attributing Republican unwillingness to compromise on revenue as a significant reason for their new rating.

Personally, I think the issue of extending the Bush tax cuts again in 2012 plays right into the hands of Obama and the Democrats given that the public is overwhelmingly on their side on this issue as well as the broader issue of the necessity to have more revenue (tax increases, primarily on the top taxpayers) as a critical part of the long-term solution.

 

in an act of extravagant intellectual dishonesty, we are now being treated to the sociopaths of the tea party set yammering about compromise.

the term for what they're doing is: damage control.

you'd have to be an idiot to buy it.

 

No, it is actually pretty simple. If the problem was uncertainty about taxes and what the government is going to do:
1- Consumers would try to spend before the taxes go up or new regulations make products more expensive
2- Supply would be down massively as investors curtailed new production.

The result, of course, would be inflation.

3- And, most important of all, if the source of all this uncertainty was the government, people wouldn't be willing to lend to the government for no return. 10 year bonds today reached 0% interest rates. That is right: people are willing to let the US government keep their money for 10 years, and then get the exact same amount back 10 years from now. Losing purchasing power because of inflation. Most people wouldn't do this for their families (10 year loan with 0% interest) and yet the market is doing it for the US government.

None of this matches with your claims, faux-populism aside. There is no "it's complicated" excuse for pretending it does.

 

ok that sounds more on par with what i was thinking. as far as the s&p i dont hold them in very high regard. why didn't they warn us in 2008 of the housing bubble and the insane adjustable rate mortgages? they were no where to be found as i recall.

i find it odd that they place blame in these situations. oh it's the tea party again, well why didn't they say something when they knew it was going to be a huge problem?

 

S&P placed lots of blame, but it seems like the Tea Party supporters are insistent on denying their role.

The fact that you dont hold S& in high regard is really not the issue; I dont particularly view them are favorably either.

The issue is the intransigence of the Republicans in Congress, particularly the Tea Party members, to put tax increases (or simply restoring the tax rates on the top taxpayers to the pre-Bush levels; still the lowest in the last 50 years) on the table.

The CBO estimates that extending those tax cuts again would cost another $3+ trillion over the next 10 years.

 

The Bush tax cuts were passed with a legally required 10 year expiration date because, even at prewar spending, they could NOT support the deficit. The tax cuts were passed KNOWING they would drive us into the red. As a business man, you should be able to see the stupidity of this action clearer the most. We were promised tax cuts would lead to more jobs. Those job never came. Therefore, the tax cuts are a hindrance to national growth. What more facts are needed then the last 10 years?

 

Ace. vs. everyone, round 312,043.

 

In fact, CBO and CRS models and simulations from several years ago (during the Bush years) found that any pro-growth effects of the 01 and 03 tax cuts would be minimal at best and offset 10 percent or less of the revenue losses due to the tax cuts.

Supply side trickle down economics has never worked and the resulting tax cuts has probably contributed more to the current debt than any other single cause.

 

Yes, but some can't seem to avoid pewling about how unfair it is that they have to pay taxes and consistently vote for corrupt politicians whose answer to every problem is to cut taxes. All the while the remainder of us suck it up and vote for politicians who, while being just as corrupt as the rest of them, at least kind of have some reasonable policy ideas. I mean, holy shit, Ron Paul was praying for a default. Michelle Bachmann would've thrown a fucking party if we defaulted.

Right. That's my point. Raising your personal income taxes isn't going to affect your business' profit margins and so it won't affect your ability to hire more employees. Glad you've abandoned that argument. And there's a difference between earning money and working (in a "sweat of your brow" sense) for it. Hedge fund managers know this difference, do you? I know this difference.

No. You're wrong. I am staying up later than I should to engage in a futile argument with you. This is clearly and obviously counter to my best interest. I smoked for well over a decade knowing all the while that doing so was clearly counter to my best interest. If people couldn't be convinced to act against their own better judgment then the advertising industry would consist of one dude in a dusty basement with a typesetting machine. It isn't a matter of wrong perception. Once you accept this fact you will have a more robust understanding of the world.

Are you talking about real wealth as defined by economists and finance folk or are you talking about your own nebulous personal definition of wealth here? Ownership mentality? What is this, some kind of seminar? Is Donald Trump going to be speaking next?

Opportunity doesn't necessarily mean all that much. I have the opportunity to win the lottery. I just need to buy a ticket and let luck do the rest. If I buy a ticket and do not win, that does not mean that I don't want to win. It does not mean that I wasn't aware of my opportunity. Don't discount the role of chance in the ability of any specific person to accumulate wealth. I guarantee that chance plays a much larger role than the presence of lack of an "ownership mentality".

The need to blame other people for their lack of success is indicative of insecurity with respect to one's own success.

Yes. Detailed modeling. Even then, it's just a model. It's likely the type of model that can vary in output wildly based on minor changes in its inputs. Even the best models just leave you with a distribution of possible outcomes. It is customary to choose the most likely one, but if your assumptions are off your results could be way off and you'll likely not know until after it's too late. Nevertheless, detailed modeling requires significantly more effort than parroting the idea that we should always lower taxes because, hey, you never know, revenue might go up afterwards, which is what you're doing here.

 

the cause of the debt is due to the federal reserve banking system. it is the system that allows them to spend infinite money. why tax when you can just create money out of thin air?

 

That is not true. But in any case, here's the thing: the downside of printing money to cover debt is inflation. That is pretty much it. Right now we have no inflation concerns. So if the government was indeed printing money to pay the debt, they've just found out the first real "free lunch" in history.

 

that comic perfectly illustrates why i cant take them seriously when they say it was the tea parties fault. they allowed this crap to happen, so we should be pretty skeptical about any advice or blame they offer.

 

who is "them" and "they"?

 

sorry i'll rephrase

that comic perfectly illustrates why i cant take the s&p seriously when they say it was the tea parties fault. the s&p allowed this crap to happen, so we should be pretty skeptical about any advice or blame the s&p offers.

​

 

Thanks for clarifying. That's not how I read your original post at all.

S&P is basically a branch of the government these days, so they're not to be trusted

 

Sorry? S&P allowed this to happen? Really?

 

S&P didn't allow this to happen at all. I just think people were calling their credibility to account based on their assessment of collateralized debt obligations and calculation mistake of 2 trillion dollars. We as a country allowed this to happen.