The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's up to 1 mil now. Didn't change things, cuz what the GOP really cares about is looking out for millionaires.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...or-the-jobless

I guess you and Riot can start the crying now...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It is a politically appointed group. Of course they are going to support their bosses position.

Except the opinions came out before the bosses position. Ben Bernacke was just interviewed on 60 Minutes, he doesn't agree with you, either.

So please - feel free to post any other economists opinion, supporting that stopping paying unemployment benefits will not slow the economy, increase layoffs, etc.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...or-the-jobless

I guess you and Riot can start the crying now...

Now? I started crying when Obama came out and said he'd cave before negotiations began. He may yet stick at 1 million (which I think is the most he should go), but he already said he'd extend for everyone, it's just a matter of length.

Yes, I do not agree with that at all. Bad, bad for expanding deficit as an unfunded tax cut. Obviously doesn't build any jobs, because that's the tax rate in effect now, that we've had since 2001-2003. We've lost 800,000 jobs on that tax rate and gone into a major recession after a threatened depression. Not much "business building" there, is there?

How's that tax cut supposed to be so awesome for growing the economy again?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I guess you think that the million dollar proposal floated by Schumer wasn't just a PR move right?

The idea that this would toss a huge chunk of our deficit out is laughable.

You have very unique financial ideas, not shared by most economists. Not shared by any economist I've seen, but I'm sure there are some out there. Can you quote any?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Now? I started crying when Obama came out and said he'd cave before negotiations began. He may yet stick at 1 million (which I think is the most he should go), but he already said he'd extend for everyone, it's just a matter of length.

Yes, I do not agree with that at all. Bad, bad for expanding deficit as an unfunded tax cut. Obviously doesn't build any jobs, because that's the tax rate in effect now, that we've had since 2001-2003. We've lost 800,000 jobs on that tax rate and gone into a major recession after a threatened depression. Not much "business building" there, is there?

How's that tax cut supposed to be so awesome for growing the economy again?

Are you seriously saying that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for a global economic calamity? The Bush tax cuts caused the collapse of the housing markets and caused finanical companies to make bad investmets? Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the debacle of fannie mae and freddie mac?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Well of course it does.
?

No, Chuck, tossing people off unemployment and not counting them doesn't change how many people are unemployed, it only changes how many you can see to count.

That's why the "real" numbers of unemployment are higher than reported, always, as Scuds already said.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The argument that you make is always completely misguided. On one hand you say that we should raise taxes which would inhibit economic growth yet on the other hand you tout the economic stimulus of unemployment benefits. It is directly out of the lefty economic redistribution playbook. Yell and scream about how much the drop in the bucket unemployment benefits help but support a huge tax increase at the same time. Sure ANY spending helps but the amount is so small that it is hardly worth talking about when compared to the damage of raising taxes.

Yak, yak, yak ... You only have one answer, that anyone that doesn't think like you do is misguided. Stop telling me how bad my argument is when you've been asked for support of yours. I've provided some figures to support mine (you've dismissed them out of hand, of course) we are still waiting for yours.

Where is the support for your argument? Change my mind. Go ahead. Show me something from an economist that says that tossing people off unemployment and taking away that cash infusion doesn't harm and slow the economy, and doesn't cause increased joblessness in other industries as that unemployment money is taken out of circulation.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You have very unique financial ideas, not shared by most economists. Not shared by any economist I've seen, but I'm sure there are some out there. Can you quote any?

As I have said before, the economy doesn't operate in a vaccum. let's say that we did eliminate the cuts and raise taxes. Lets say that causes our economy to stagnate as the mega rich move more money offshore or to tax shelters or they stop investing in their businesses, ect. The slowing down of economic growth would most certainly cause the extra money supposed to be raised by the cuts to be lower than suggested. Add in tax reciepts overall decreasing as the economy gets worse. Not a good picture.

One underlying reason the Democratic leadership is supporting rasing taxes outside of the liberal agenda of taking from the rich is that they know they need a whole lot more money to support the Obamacare debacle. That money that they would take from the "rich" wouldnt be used to reduce the deficit. Anyone who believes that is beyond naive.

[Riot]

Are you seriously saying that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for a global economic calamity?

You seriously got that out of what I said? LOL - no, that's not what I said.

The Bush tax cuts caused the collapse of the housing markets and caused finanical companies to make bad investmets? Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the debacle of fannie mae and freddie mac?

Geeshus freekin' cripes. What drugs are you on?

Show me how that tax rate to the wealthy helped grow jobs and the economy since 2001 and 2003.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yak, yak, yak ... You only have one answer, that anyone that doesn't think like you do is misguided. Stop telling me how bad my argument is when you've been asked for support of yours. I've provided some figures to support mine (you've dismissed them out of hand, of course) we are still waiting for yours.

Where is the support for your argument? Change my mind. Go ahead. Show me something from an economist that says that tossing people off unemployment and taking away that cash infusion doesn't harm and slow the economy, and doesn't cause increased joblessness in other industries as that unemployment money is taken out of circulation.

Adam Smith could rise from the dead and not be able to change your mind.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Adam Smith could rise from the dead and not be able to change your mind.

You got nothing. Got it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You seriously got that out of what I said? LOL - no, that's not what I said.



Geeshus freekin' cripes. What drugs are you on?

Show me how that tax rate to the wealthy helped grow jobs and the economy since 2001 and 2003.

You cant say that we have lost jobs since 2003 and simply blame one thing, the Bush tax cuts. Again, there are so many factors that it is silly to blame one particular thing. I could counter that perhaps we would have lost 2 million jobs without them. Naturally my argument would be silly as well so i wont go there.

[Riot]

As I have said before, the economy doesn't operate in a vaccum. let's say that we did eliminate the cuts and raise taxes. Lets say that causes our economy to stagnate as the mega rich move more money offshore or to tax shelters or they stop investing in their businesses, ect.

Why would you guess that outcome? I don't see much support for that supposition.

The tax rate on the mega-rich is going from 36% back to 39.6%, and is the tax rate they had during the boom years of the Clinton administration. The practical rate of the mega-rich is more like 17% average due to their massive deductions.

The reversion back to the normal tax rates equals about 100,000 per one million dollars, BEFORE deductions and adjusted gross income determination.

Surveys have shown the mega rich already do not infuse any extra money into consumerism or capitalism, it's extra = thus they save it, invest it.

Why would you think that small shift would cause the mega-rich to totally alter their historical behaviours, thus cause our economy to stagnate, let alone move money offshore, tax shelters, stop investing?

The only thing that increased when the tax rates dropped in 2001 and 2003 was the mega-rich saving more of the extra money they got.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You got nothing. Got it.

Seriously I posted a very good piece on why extending the tax cuts for everyone was a positive thing and you dismissed it out of hand as theoretical. Now you want me to provide theoreticl arguments to counter your theoretical arguments? It is pointless to try to debate with you anyway.

You keep posting hysterical rants about how bad and dumb and out of touch and evil the GOP is for not extending the unemployment benefits when it is pretty much a given that they are simply using them as a tactic to get something they want (the tax cut extention). They use something the Dems want to get something they want. The cutting spending to match the benefits was just rhetoric.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The tax rate on the mega-rich is going from 36% back to 39.6%, and is the tax rate they had during the boom years of the Clinton administration.

Are you suggesting that the tax rate was responsible for the "boom years"?

And if you arent, why would raising tax rates be a good idea in decidedly not boom years?

And what exactly qualifies one as "mega-rich"? Certainly a person who makes $251000 a year isnt "mega-rich" right?

[Riot]

You cant say that we have lost jobs since 2003 and simply blame one thing, the Bush tax cuts.

I didn't do that, and do not think that. I simply pointed out the truth, that the tax rates in question for the wealthiest 2% of Americans have been the rates present through this last historical near great depression and great recession.

As keeping these rates as they are, and not raising the gross rate 3.6% (and remember that is not adjusted rate after deductions, not the practical rate of 17% or so the wealthiest average) - on the top 2% of wealthiest Americans has been deemed essential to our economy, surely there is some way that conclusion was arrived at, some way to measure the amount of this tax rates contribution to growth within the economy, in spite of the toilet the entire economy fell into. That's not too complex an operation, especially in retrospect. There must have been present exactly what is being promised now: increases in business capital investment, etc.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seriously I posted a very good piece on why extending the tax cuts for everyone was a positive thing .

The Christian Science news piece quoting politicians? Is that what you are referring to?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why would you guess that outcome? I don't see much support for that supposition.

The tax rate on the mega-rich is going from 36% back to 39.6%, and is the tax rate they had during the boom years of the Clinton administration. The practical rate of the mega-rich is more like 17% average due to their massive deductions.

The reversion back to the normal tax rates equals about 100,000 per one million dollars, BEFORE deductions and adjusted gross income determination.

Surveys have shown the mega rich already do not infuse any extra money into consumerism or capitalism, it's extra = thus they save it, invest it.

Why would you think that small shift would cause the mega-rich to totally alter their historical behaviours, thus cause our economy to stagnate, let alone move money offshore, tax shelters, stop investing?

The only thing that increased when the tax rates dropped in 2001 and 2003 was the mega-rich saving more of the extra money they got.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

[Riot]

Are you suggesting that the tax rate was responsible for the "boom years"?

Nope. Just noting those were the rates present when a budget deficit was converted to a budget surplus, and yeah, having income helps to do that.

And what exactly qualifies one as "mega-rich"?

You were the one to first use the term here. What did you mean by it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Christian Science news piece quoting politicians? Is that what you are referring to?

Did you read the Christian science thing? it simply talks about a deal looming on extending the tax cuts and the unemployment benefits.