gut;1337652 wrote:It's $100B this year, an average of $150B (cuts and tax increases ) over 10years. We are talking 10-15% of the deficit but only about 2-3% of the budget...about 0.65% of GDP. If that's austerity we are in a world of trouble. Horribly irresponsible to pretend like we are incapable of making those cuts, or that they are so damaging. IMO the lack of confidence and deficit overhang is sapping more growth than that out of the economy - so there's potential to offset this by unlocking growth thru responsible budget actions.

The SF Fed released a newsletter this summer speculating that we could contract by 1.2% over the first 2 quarters of 2013.

That would be very bad.

So to be clear is your position that we should go over the "cliff" but minus tax increases?

gut;1337656 wrote:That is some serious bullshit, liberal propaganda at its finest. Repubs aren't trying to give handouts to the rich, it's a philosophical difference that higher rates hurts the economy. More directly, it's their only leverage to negotiate for spending/deficit reduction that is really dragging the economy down.

Besides that, one can just look at history to see changes in rates have a pretty marginal impact on revenues. That makes this whole debate nothing more than mental masturbation. The only way to close the deficit are spending cuts and expanding the tax bases.

I didn't say they were trying to give handouts to the rich (that's a different discussion about corporate welfare). I meant that in relation to the current tax discussion where it appears that the GOP is concerned mostly with high income earners. Because if that wasn't the case they could very easily get the cuts for nearly everyone by accepting some increases for higher income earners.

I meant it only in regards to taxes and the current discussion.

I Wear Pants;1337659 wrote:The SF Fed released a newsletter this summer speculating that we could contract by 1.2% over the first 2 quarters of 2013.

That would be very bad.

So to be clear is your position that we should go over the "cliff" but minus tax increases?

The cliff includes those tax increases, so the impact will be even more marginal if they waive those aspects.

Just use a little common sense. The whole Keynesian multiplier effect is pretty wonky. But let's take that at face value - so $100B in cuts/tax increases are going to cause the economy to contract some $180B? Which implies a $1T deficit is adding 12% to GDP? So without that deficit spending we have contraction>10%? And actually they are implying it's more like a 2-3% reduction, from piddly lil 'ol $100B "austerity". What garbage.

No. We're seeing little, if any, positive return from the massive deficit spending. We could easily take out $100B (and then some) being flushed down the toilet without hurting the economy. The resulting lack of confidence and uncertainty is a different story, however.

I Wear Pants;1337661 wrote:Because if that wasn't the case they could very easily get the cuts for nearly everyone by accepting some increases for higher income earners.

Oh really? Wow, you really have been too distracted to pay much attention, haven't you?

gut;1337668 wrote:The cliff includes those tax increases, so the impact will be even more marginal if they waive those aspects.

Just use a little common sense. The whole Keynesian multiplier effect is pretty wonky. But let's take that at face value - so $100B in cuts/tax increases are going to cause the economy to contract some $180B? Which implies a $1T deficit is adding 12% to GDP? So without that deficit spending we have contraction>10%? And actually they are implying it's more like a 2-3% reduction, from piddly lil 'ol $100B "austerity". What garbage.

No. We're seeing little, if any, positive return from the massive deficit spending. We could easily take out $100B (and then some) being flushed down the toilet without hurting the economy. The resulting lack of confidence and uncertainty is a different story, however.

First, common sense is a fallacy.

Secondly, I don't find the multiplier to be a bullshit concept. I don't think that every evaluation as to the extent of multipliers in regards to specific policies/spending is correct but the concept is sound.

Edit: And the fiscal cliff portion is $136B in cuts and $532B in tax increases. Acting like that wouldn't be bad for us doesn't make sense to me.

I Wear Pants;1337636 wrote:That's a fine point but Democrats haven't been the one making pledges and screaming about how tax increases are the worst thing ever/literally Hitler, etc. If they truly thought that and cared about most people then they would work foremost to assure that most people don't see those tax increases. But they're only concern appears to be that top percentage.

Their "top concern" has been for growth, they just happen to believe that growth would be hurt by taxing the people who actually create jobs.

It has nothing to do with them being in love with rich people.

I Wear Pants;1337651 wrote:I don't see how it's the same. Democrats tend to think entitlements are valuable and therefore don't want to vote for them being cut.

And yes I could be more biased. I could be Ty Webb or Quaker Oats/Belly/etc.

The Republicans tend to think Jobs are important and they know that rich people and rich corporations are where jobs come from. See, without the media bias we can see how the Rs aren't so stupid can't we?

I Wear Pants;1337651 wrote:I don't see how it's the same. Democrats tend to think entitlements are valuable and therefore don't want to vote for them being cut.

And yes I could be more biased. I could be Ty Webb or Quaker Oats/Belly/etc.

And Republicans tend to think low taxes are valuable. Called compromise bro; where's your criticism of the other side?

jmog;1337758 wrote:The Republicans tend to think Jobs are important and they know that rich people and rich corporations are where jobs come from. See, without the media bias we can see how the Rs aren't so stupid can't we?

I'm assuming you're talking about large corporations here. In that case I'm going to need you to clarify what you consider a large corporation before responding.

I Wear Pants;1337684 wrote:First, common sense is a fallacy.

Secondly, I don't find the multiplier to be a bull**** concept. I don't think that every evaluation as to the extent of multipliers in regards to specific policies/spending is correct but the concept is sound.

Edit: And the fiscal cliff portion is $136B in cuts and $532B in tax increases. Acting like that wouldn't be bad for us doesn't make sense to me.

LMFAO...."common sense is a fallacy". Are you for fucking real?!? How much are you spending for that degree? I assume you mean you have no response to basic math.

And it ain't $532B in one year (don't make the partisan mistake of ignoring management of tax liabilities). Pull your head out of the partisan diarrhea. My god, man, I thought you were reasonably intelligent.

Keep in mind, NONE of this has anything to do with the budget and spending next year. Fungible - learn and understand what it means.

sleeper;1337760 wrote:And Republicans tend to think low taxes are valuable. Called compromise bro; where's your criticism of the other side?

He hasn't had the opportunity to calibrate his education with the real world yet. Cut him some slack.

I Wear Pants;1337764 wrote:I'm assuming you're talking about large corporations here. In that case I'm going to need you to clarify what you consider a large corporation before responding.

You need clarification of what a large corporation is? Do you need spoon fed everything in life? If someone told me "large corporation", one could easily use any company in the S&P500. I mean what do you expect his answer to be? Only companies between 1.235 billion in revenue and 8.422523 in revenue. I mean christ.

sleeper;1337785 wrote:You need clarification of what a large corporation is? Do you need spoon fed everything in life? If someone told me "large corporation", one could easily use any company in the S&P500. I mean what do you expect his answer to be? Only companies between 1.235 billion in revenue and 8.422523 in revenue. I mean christ.

I was thinking more in terms of how many employees they have. Because companies with fewer than 500 employees have made up 62% of job gains since 1992. But if he said companies with more than 100 employees that obviously changes things. I was trying to understand his opinion more before throwing out numbers to refute a position which he might not have even been taking.

" LMFAO...."common sense is a fallacy". Are you for fucking real?!? How much are you spending for that degree? I assume you mean you have no response to basic math.

And it ain't $532B in one year (don't make the partisan mistake of ignoring management of tax liabilities). Pull your head out of the partisan diarrhea. My god, man, I thought you were reasonably intelligent.

Keep in mind, NONE of this has anything to do with the budget and spending next year. Fungible - learn and understand what it means. "
Well it is a fallacy.

The 532 number I got from the WSJ and was for 2013.

Sleeper here's something you will likely agree with me on. This endeavor by the Occupy Wallstreet people (who I agree with on some matters) is absolutely fucking stupid: http://rollingjubilee.org/
It does have a nicely designed website but anyone with a brain and even the most basic understanding of markets or how debt works will realize it as pants-shittingly dumb.

I Wear Pants;1337788 wrote: The 532 number I got from the WSJ and was for 2013.

Yeah, my bad. Big faux paux. For some reason I've been focused on the debt ceiling portion. Anyway, that $560B total (different numbers floating around) is a little over double what they should be shooting for. And, of course, they wouldn't collect anywhere near $532B in those taxes (and there's always cuts expiring and new ones issued). The spending cuts are always dubious (i.e. fungible) because there's "baseline" increases every year, and there's always new, additional spending because we don't have a balanced budget amendment.

IMO, they should look for about $200-$250B in cuts this year, and then a similar amount in tax increases next year (because spending cuts are preferable to tax increases). See where we're at (hopefully an economic recovery helps move things along).

And the $127B for the payroll holiday should go away. That shouldn't even be a debate - EVERYONE should pay their premiums for social insurance. Not to mention, I'd have to look-up some research but I don't think an extra $20 a week has anywhere near the same stimulative effect as a rebate check for $1000.

Yay for Unions!

Chrysler forced to rehire workers who were fired for doing drugs during lunch breaks

Read more: http://www.610wtvn.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=10629361&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wtvnnationalnews+(WTVN-AM+(National+-+National+News))&utm_content=FaceBook#ixzz2ElTipCA2

Nice post. I did not have much information about that. I do agree with that as the good health is the basic need for a good student. Will look for more post like this.