gut;1254121 wrote:What other significant economic development happened in 2000 that might have heavily influenced, even dominated, that stat?

There's no debating that prior to 2000, and Clinton's ability to "balance" the budget as a result, revenues were artificially inflated by the dot-com bubble.

ding ding ding You are correct.

gut;1254121 wrote:What other significant economic development happened in 2000 that might have heavily influenced, even dominated, that stat?

There's no debating that prior to 2000, and Clinton's ability to "balance" the budget as a result, revenues were artificially inflated by the dot-com bubble.

Couldn't we point to the 2005-07 years as well then and say that those receipts were artificially inflated by the housing bubble, and not tax policy? When that went pop the revenues went crashing down as well.

IggyPride00;1254131 wrote:Couldn't we point to the 2005-07 years as well then and say that those receipts were artificially inflated by the housing bubble, and not tax policy? When that went pop the revenues went crashing down as well.

In most cases, people flipping and sellings houses for large gains were able to exclude those gains. Sure, lots of other revenues did come due to the housing bubble, but the point is the revenues weren't artificially lower, or higher, because of tax policy. A lot of that housing activity was real. Thing weren't terribly overbuilt, but paper gains did juice the economy a fair amount as far as consumption goes. But when you're talking about the big gains from housing, and the subsequent losses, it's mostly not taxable revenues.

Again, focus on the % of GDP. That's a pretty good proxy for the effiency/effectiveness of the tax system. Revenues were back near historic norms. The point I made, which you argument has nothing to do with, was that after a massive correction like in 2000 (and again in 2008), it takes time for revenues from investments and corporate profits to return because of offsets. That's what was driving the dip under Bush's tax cuts. The housing bubble is really a different discussion.

Incidentally, the housing bubble didn't start in 2005. It started @ 2001 when the fed began trying to reflate the economy after the dot-com bomb. But make whatever argument you want, there's no evidence tax policy under Bush lowered revenues at any point. All the research I've always seen doesn't really take into account the realization of income, that could otherwise be deferred indefinitely, to take advantage of lower rates. They always say "these cuts yielded $X lower in revenues", but they make the fallacious assumption that the tax base remains the same. The tax base is always comparatively lower under higher rate regimes. The real art is in finding the optimal rate that maximizes revenue, whether that comes thru higher rates or a larger base.

BoatShoes;1253684 wrote:Actually we have good ideas...more government spending financed by willing investors at historically low interest rates on needed construction projects with high multipliers. We know this works and have half a century. The stimulus package was the right medicine but the wrong dose. We could also use the same inflation rate Ronald Reagan had for the short term to reduce the real burden of our debt. Finally, we should give more aid to the states so they can hire back the people they've fired and contractors they've put on hold when they started the largest spending cuts since the demobilization after the Korean War which has prevented our economy from approaching full employment despite faster private sector job growth and investment than occurred following the previous two recessions.

Romney's ideas are the opposite...cutting government spending in pursuit of a balanced budget despite it's automatic rise due to the needs of the unemployed and falling tax revenue and despite record low interest rates indicating investors aren't worried about our ability to pay our obligations....all in the hope that it will engender enough "confidence" that the private sector will consume and spend instead of the government.

That is a folly and you will be worse off like every other country is who has tried it. Be careful what you wish for.

Because the first stimulus worked so well? Even if you are a hard core Keynesian (you are, I'm not), at least admit this administration is so incompetent they can't even spend Chinese provided money correctly due their corruption, cronyism and flat out stupidity. The Obama stimulus is one of the biggest economic failures in western civilization history, and you want to give them more money that will need to be paid by future generations?

You might as well give an alcoholic a key to the ABC store and a key to a Ferrari on I-75.

This is beyond politics, we have incompetents leading the country, they have to go.

Also, boats graph with GDP still proves our point. Right now we are only about 1% lower in revenues than during the Bush years but we are 5% higher in spending. I wonder what should change?

jmog;1254487 wrote:Also, boats graph with GDP still proves our point. Right now we are only about 1% lower in revenues than during the Bush years but we are 5% higher in spending. I wonder what should change?

More teachers, policemen and firefighters! Forget how we budget for it. After all teachers, policemen and firefighters bring in revenue.

The incompetence astounds me.

Manhattan Buckeye;1254489 wrote:More teachers, policemen and firefighters! Forget how we budget for it. After all teachers, policemen and firefighters bring in revenue.

The incompetence astounds me.

BoatShoes;1253679 wrote:I'm sorry but disliking President Obama isn't a good excuse for not voting for him. The evidence is clear that the state budget cuts by the party you're going to vote for has reduced GDP and raised unemployment. Without that, we'd be approaching full employment and growing at a faster rate.

Our GDP is something like $15 trillion- am I to believe that cuts to state and local govts (many of whom are statutorally bound to balance their budgets) are the biggest reason for a reduction in GDP?

jhay78;1254564 wrote:Our GDP is something like $15 trillion- am I to believe that cuts to state and local govts (many of whom are statutorally bound to balance their budgets) are the biggest reason for a reduction in GDP?

According to Biden, Pelosi, and Boatshoes deficit spending by the Feds is the pathway to economic prosperity.

jmog;1254487 wrote:Also, boats graph with GDP still proves our point. Right now we are only about 1% lower in revenues than during the Bush years but we are 5% higher in spending. I wonder what should change?

How are you going to cut that particular type of spending that has automatically risen...spending that amounts to money in the pocket of people who cannot find a job despite their best efforts...without reducing gdp and raising unemployment higher?

You've still missed the entire point which is; trying to close the deficit right now with spending cuts or most tax raises is a fool's errand.

Manhattan Buckeye;1254433 wrote:Because the first stimulus worked so well? Even if you are a hard core Keynesian (you are, I'm not), at least admit this administration is so incompetent they can't even spend Chinese provided money correctly due their corruption, cronyism and flat out stupidity. The Obama stimulus is one of the biggest economic failures in western civilization history, and you want to give them more money that will need to be paid by future generations?

You might as well give an alcoholic a key to the ABC store and a key to a Ferrari on I-75.

This is beyond politics, we have incompetents leading the country, they have to go.

The first stimulus did work. It was the right medicine just not a large enough dose. You know when your doctor prescribes you an antibiotic and instructs you to take it all even if you feel better and then you don't and then you get sick again? Same type of thing.

And, you may believe in your heart the vast incompetency of the President but Mr. market doesn't seem to think so and is readily willing to lend his administration his money

jhay78;1254564 wrote:Our GDP is something like $15 trillion- am I to believe that cuts to state and local govts (many of whom are statutorally bound to balance their budgets) are the biggest reason for a reduction in GDP?

You're absolutely right...and we could've helped them meet their silly constitutional amendments for balanced budgets with aid to the states...with just that, we would be on the road to full employment.

believer;1254579 wrote:According to Biden, Pelosi, and Boatshoes deficit spending by the Feds is the pathway to economic prosperity.

It's not government spending per se....it is spending...spending on things mutually beneficial goods and services that increase aggregate wealth....in the early 80's recession it was defense spending and increased private spending from interest rate cuts and tax cuts...in the 90's it was increased private spending in silicon valley...in the 2001 recession it was increased spending on housing.

Somebody has to spend in the equation for economic growth and the private sector is not doing it overall...primarily because of continued slump in housing and further has been countered by the largest cuts in public spending (at the state and local level) since the de-mobilization after the de-mobilization after the Korean war. Thus, with the lowest interest rates in a generation, it makes sense for the government to do it on projects we're gonna need anyway right now while it's cheap while the private sector improves its balance sheets.

Manhattan Buckeye;1254489 wrote:More teachers, policemen and firefighters! Forget how we budget for it. After all teachers, policemen and firefighters bring in revenue.

The incompetence astounds me.

Meanwhile the largest cuts in public spending (which MB thinks is a great idea) since the de-mobilization after the Korean War is holding us back despite faster growth in the private sector following the last two recessions. Gee Whiz! But so long as we get the guy who coasted through HLS and had everything handed to him out and put in the guys who want more spending cuts in a depressed economy we're all good, yo.

BoatShoes;1254677 wrote:It's not government spending per se....it is spending...spending on things mutually beneficial goods and services that increase aggregate wealth....in the early 80's recession it was defense spending and increased private spending from interest rate cuts and tax cuts...in the 90's it was increased private spending in silicon valley...in the 2001 recession it was increased spending on housing.

Somebody has to spend in the equation for economic growth and the private sector is not doing it overall...primarily because of continued slump in housing and further has been countered by the largest cuts in public spending (at the state and local level) since the de-mobilization after the de-mobilization after the Korean war. Thus, with the lowest interest rates in a generation, it makes sense for the government to do it on projects we're gonna need anyway right now while it's cheap while the private sector improves its balance sheets.

If the government had the resources to spend on common-sense projects like highway infrastructure I might understand....but it simply doesn't. The only way that should happen would be if (a) the government balances the budget and (b) tax revenues increase. And where do those revenues come from? That's right....the private sector.

While the private sector may be negatively influenced by the housing slump, it's certainly not the only factor in anemic private sector growth. Part if it is due to the fact that businesses are a bit skittish on capital investment in light of the coming Taxmageddon.

If the private sector is anemic now, wait until tax rates increase. Tax rates will go up, the private sector will tank even more, and tax revenues will be at best a wash.

But - hey - nothing a little more Bernanke Quantitative Easing can't fix though, right?

BoatShoes;1254666 wrote:How are you going to cut that particular type of spending that has automatically risen...spending that amounts to money in the pocket of people who cannot find a job despite their best efforts...without reducing gdp and raising unemployment higher?

You've still missed the entire point which is; trying to close the deficit right now with spending cuts or most tax raises is a fool's errand.

So, you bring up the revenues and spending as a percent of GDP as proof we need more revenues. I then point out that we are only 1 or 2% off compared to Clinton and Bush years in revenues but 5% off in spending.

You then realize I'm correct and change your story/move the goal posts.

I understand well enough.

BoatShoes;1254677 wrote:It's not government spending per se....it is spending...spending on things mutually beneficial goods and services that increase aggregate wealth....in the early 80's recession it was defense spending and increased private spending from interest rate cuts and tax cuts...in the 90's it was increased private spending in silicon valley...in the 2001 recession it was increased spending on housing.

Somebody has to spend in the equation for economic growth and the private sector is not doing it overall...primarily because of continued slump in housing and further has been countered by the largest cuts in public spending (at the state and local level) since the de-mobilization after the de-mobilization after the Korean war. Thus, with the lowest interest rates in a generation, it makes sense for the government to do it on projects we're gonna need anyway right now while it's cheap while the private sector improves its balance sheets.

Boats, we have just witnessed the biggest explosion of Keynesian economics this country has ever witnessed sans WWII. You can show all the pie charts you want but the deficit spending has shown shit for growth and shit for dropping unemployment.

What do we have to show for this? Absolutely nothing. It's time to address radical changes in an attempt to right a systemic clusterfuck.

Can we put to rest the idea that switching to more conservative economics starting with Reagan helped us now? It helped no one but the investment class.

80's and 90's are better than the 70's.

What that chart really tells me is talented people are less prone to, and have not yet felt the effects, of globalization. Contrary to popular opinion, the growing wealth gap is not confined to the US.

80s were only better for the upper fifths.

I Wear Pants;1255447 wrote:80s were only better for the upper fifths.

And but the 90's were better, too? You do realize that comparing average increases in real wages hardly means boo-hoo when it's still increasing? You want to show me the real wages chart? It's flat since the 80's, which again shows a widening wealth gap seen globally. But it's not about getting less pie, is it? It's about getting a smaller % of the pie, which really isn't particularly relevant.

I mean, do you expect increases into perpetuity? The last decade is the problem, a reality observed globally.

I Wear Pants;1255447 wrote:80s were only better for the upper fifths.

Which led to prosperity for everyone in the 90s. Trickle down worked.

I Wear Pants;1255440 wrote:


Can we put to rest the idea that switching to more conservative economics starting with Reagan helped us now? It helped no one but the investment class.

Looks about right. The dollar was completely de-linked from gold in 1971, removing any restrictions on the printing press. Ever since has been the gradual transfer of wealth from those who access the new money last (poor and middle class) to those access it first (politicians, bankers, big corporations favored by the government).

Obama pays homage to Neil Armstrong....with picture of himself...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/27/obama-pays-tribute-to-neil-armstrong-the-only-way-he-knows-how/

Stratistics can be used/misused in many ways to argue a point.

E.g. ... The demise of the middle class and 'lower half' mirrors the antipoverty measures and the ballooning of entitlements since the mid sixties.

superman;1255515 wrote:Which led to prosperity for everyone in the 90s. Trickle down worked.

Yes, but it is being reversed now with obama's trickle up poverty.

Change we can believe in ...