Reply With Quote
The Manny and Chump method of debating an issue:
So much substance. So much content. Way to take a position.
We're the only country to call it the great depression. We were in it longer than any other country. The "great" depression wasn't even the "greatest" this country has seen. Wasn't cuz everything done to get out of that one is the complete opposite that was done in '29 and now. "Progress"ives don't like being wrong, but mostly are.
The Manny and Chump method of debating an issue:
So much substance. So much content. Way to take a position.
why do you assume they are taking a position?
.
You have to support your points in a debate..you make the claim you back it up...debate 101
They hardly ever do.
fine, then why do you get so redassed when they ask you a question?
I don't know why its necessary to take a position if I don't feel I have enough facts. I don't know what Krugman's proposals will do because I haven't really looked into them.
What does that have to do with asking you to back up what you're saying? If I go against something, I have reasons why and I can explain myself if asked about it. If I don't then whats the point of going against something?
To say you're against it.
I wonder why Krugman is "off message"? Did he not get the memo that this was the Summer of Recovery?
Off message according to whom?
/loaded dice
If they want to go farther in debt, wouldn't we be better to reduce the taxes on businesses and corporations that employ people?
For my friend, Manny.
A referendum on the economy
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci...636?source=rss
New figures that show our nation's economy back on life support ought to be a game- changer for our elected officials and anyone seeking office.
Economic growth was revised down to a piddling 1.6 percent in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Friday. It's a significant drop from the 3.7 percent growth in the first quarter.
Economists expect the third quarter to hardly grow much more, estimating 1.7 percent growth.
It looks like the Keynesian theory of infusing massive amounts of government cash into the economy has fizzled. And while many other factors also explain the lack of economic energy, the bottom line is that nearly everyone — from consumers to business owners to government decision-makers — faces tremendous unknowns.
Worries about maintaining jobs and salaries stymie consumers. Businesses are holding back money. Economists also say that likely changes to tax laws and new regulatory environments are having a chilling effect.
And that uncertainty continues to hobble our consumer-generated economy.
The news is dire and the message — we hope — is simple: We need clear-eyed action going forward. Kicking around political footballs when there is a chance the country could slip back into recession cannot be tolerated.
"People have been overwhelmed by uncertainty," Ethan Harris, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told The Associated Press.
Meanwhile, the nearly $1 trillion in federal money spent to shore up battered state and local governments and fund various infrastructure projects is drying up, and attempting another stimulus bill would be political suicide as the national debt tops $13 trillion. The debt has reached a level that's endangering national security.
It's also important to note that anemic economic growth nationally most likely means that Colorado won't be able to grow its way out of its state budget troubles. Since the state budget must be balanced, the grim economic numbers will only exacerbate Colorado's challenges.
We need our lawmakers in Colorado, and those who represent us in Washington, to start articulating specific proposals meant to restructure government to something we can afford.
In Colorado, that means ideas for balancing the budget without decimating K-12 education, higher ed and social services; and in Washington, that means deficit reduction plans.
The debate in Washington also will be about whether to extend President Bush's tax cuts.
We don't know that extending the cuts will help much in the short term, but we do know that adding uncertainty to the already fragile situation is irresponsible.
Elections often are decided based on the economic mood of the country. And since this is the season of political rallies, forums and debates, we think voters ought to demand answers to these daunting economic questions.
Extending the tax cuts and planning deficit reduction are mutually exclusive.
Tax cuts have nothing to do with quadrupling the deficit.
Damn, that was funny.
Um, so because someone says it its correct Darrin? My point that you still have no idea why you believe what you do still stands since the article you posted doesn't explain .
You see, when rational people make statements they are usually able to produce information as to why they believe what they have stated. Someone else simply restating it and not explaining why doesn't somehow rationalize it.
I don't claim to be an economist, but it's becoming blatantly obvious that the massive infusion of stimulus isn't working. Why would we want to double-down on that theory?
But, whatever, you can keep insulting me or posting smileys. Apparently, that's what you do.
You're A Check Box Liar.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
Thanks for that link to one of Soros' pet projects.
Try this one:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-rich-deficit/
Bush's tax cuts for high earners "have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit."
At a news conference on Jan. 8, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked about the U.S. budget deficit.
The reporter noted that the Congressional Budget Office projected a relatively small deficit in 2012 if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of 2010 and tax rates go back to what they were during the Clinton administration.
"You face a major decision next year on tax rates, since the rates do expire at the end of 2010," the reporter said. "Isn't it inevitable that many taxpayers will face a significant tax increase in 2011?"
"Let me just say that the tax cuts at the high end that you were referencing have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit," Pelosi said. "Don't take my word for it, that's the word of the Congressional Budget Office when the Republicans had control of the Congress."
She continued, "Put me down as clearly as you possibly can as one who wants to have those tax cuts for the wealthiest in America repealed," adding that it should happen "as soon as possible." She cited the same cutoff point that Barack Obama used during the campaign: Taxes should go up for people making about $250,000 or more.
Pelosi was clear about her position, but we wondered about her assertion that the Bush tax cuts "at the high end" were indeed "the biggest contributor to the budget deficit."
When we started this item, we thought it would be relatively straightforward. How wrong we were.
We should start off with the easy stuff: First, there is no CBO report that says tax cuts for the wealthiest are the biggest contributor to the deficit.
We asked Speaker Pelosi's office about her statement, and they pointed us to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the re-emergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years," said the center's analysis.
It also created a handy pie chart that shows tax cuts are responsible for 48 percent of the costs of new legislation between 2001 and 2007. This is second to military spending, the Iraq war and homeland security spending, which together contributed to 35 percent of legislative costs.
But that didn't satisfy us, because that 48 percent number included all tax cuts, not just for the wealthy. It also shows only the costs of new legislation, not the overall deficit.
So we went asking around: For what part of the deficit are tax cuts at the "high end" responsible?
"The real problem is that the deficit is a composite of revenues and spending. You can't say where we would be if we hadn't had any part of that," said Bob Williams, the principal research associate of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. (He also worked for the Congressional Budget Office from 1984 to 2006.)
Having said that, Williams said it's very unlikely that overall tax cuts for the wealthy outpaced the tax cuts for everybody else.
So what is "the high end"? During the campaign, Barack Obama called for repealing the tax cuts on singles making $200,000 or more and couples making $250,000 or more. This is roughly the top 3 percent of taxpayers.
The Tax Policy Center analyzed that plan and found that if Obama raised the rates on that group, it would generate roughly $350 billion over 10 years. Conversely, leaving in place the Bush tax cuts for everyone else would come to $850 billion over 10 years.
Another way to look at it: The Tax Policy Center calculated what share of the federal tax changes each income bracket gained from the Bush tax cuts. The top 5 percent of earners (those making about $225,000 or more) received 30.5 percent of the tax benefits in 2008, according to their analysis. But conversely, the bottom 95 percent of tax payers got 70 percent. Zoom out from the top 5 percent to the top 20 percent, and their share is 47.8 percent. Critics of the Bush tax cuts can call that disproportionate, but it's still less than half and therefore not "the biggest."
All of this indicates that Pelosi is mistaken. Although the wealthy did get big benefits from the Bush tax cuts, their benefits did not outweigh those of everyone else put together.
Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan nonprofit group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said there are three major contributors to the worsening budget picture presented by the Congressional Budget Office: tax cuts, the Iraq war and the economic downturn.
"Within the tax cuts, the largest numbers went to the middle class, and those are the tax cuts that are most likely to be extended," she said. "I don't see how you could read the numbers to say otherwise."
Certainly tax cuts for high earners have increased the deficit. Pelosi might have made a more convincing case if she had said high earners received a disproportionate benefit from the Bush tax cuts.
But Pelosi said tax cuts for "the high end" were the "biggest" contributor to the federal deficit. We looked at the numbers from a bunch of different angles and found no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy are larger than those of everyone else combined. In fact, all the numbers we looked at showed that tax cuts for middle and lower incomes represent a bigger slice of the overall revenue pie. We think that evidence directly contradicts her, so we rate her statement False.
But since Boutons likes pictures, try this one.
... with Lie By Omission of not showing the what contributes to the deficit.
Break the deficits down for us, will ya?
Anything from VRWC Heritage or Cato will do.
Then I'm sure if its that obvious you can point out how the mul ude of economists who have said just the opposite are wrong and explain yourself.
I'm sure he's composing a thought-provoking post as we speak.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
