Fiscal irresponsibility - McCain & Obama tax policies

[Ma'ake]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi....cfm?ID=411693

We're now paying the price for extended budget deficits, fueled by persistent (and arguably) irresponsible tax cuts without regard to their long term economic effects.

The preliminary analysis of McCain's & Obama's tax policies suggests with Obama tax revenues (ability to close the deficit, reduce the debt) would be increased by $700B, while McCain's proposal would increase our deficit / debt economic baggage by $600B.

The micro-focused conservative emphasis on the benefits of tax cuts is running up against the now apparent economic price to be paid by all for irresponsible fiscal policy.

As with McCain's proposal to exploit domestic oil reserves, there is no commensurate requirement for (needed) sacrifice by individuals, the underlying problems to be manifested & paid for in the long run are ignored.

This is simply a continuation of Bush's fundamental irresponsibility. We have to face reality. This isn't it. This is transparent political pandering, exploiting individualism for short term political gain.

No sacrifice to be paid, folks. Put the tab on the credit card.

[ChinoCoug]

Like Bob Dole before him, McCain has sacrificed his deficit hawkishness on the altar of supply side voodoo, AGAINST THE COUNSEL OF HIS ADVISERS. You've got a serious mess when someone who admittedly doesn't know much about economics ignores his economic advisers. All this government borrowing will blow interest rates through the roof and arrest investors.

Obama, on the other hand, will raise revenue from the richest 1.5%. It's the first law of public economics that if you're gonna tax, go after the people most unresponsive to taxation. In our time of huge deficits, this is sensible economics.

He's also lifting the cap off the ultra-regressive payroll tax, simplifying tax forms for middle class taxpayers, and encourage the middle class to take advantage of 401Ks they currently aren't.

[Archaea]

This tactic always makes cry.

Liberals encourage a liberal like Bush to spend like a drunken sailor, but the sole conservative aspect of him refuses to raise taxes.

So after he's accrued a debt spending for the libs on a prescription drug plan we don't need and can't afford, the liberal element steps in and states, "we really need to raise taxes."

Sorry don't buy it. Start cutting programs and eliminating staff. Until that's done seriously, NOBODY should seriously consider raising taxes.

Start by means testing Medicare, limiting benefits, and eliminating the Prescription Drug plan.

Start by not rehiring retirees from the federal government bureaucracies. Encourage early retirement.

NOTE: I'm fully aware, nobody will implement these sensible suggestions, and Obama will probably f.. us up with your suggestions, but F... us for electing the asshole.

Struggling economy, so let's restrict capital, regulate banking more, dry up spending through higher taxes, change the capital gains tax

Why couldn't I think of dumber ideas than that.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This tactic always makes cry.

Liberals encourage a liberal like Bush to spend like a drunken sailor, but the sole conservative aspect of him refuses to raise taxes.

So after he's accrued a debt spending for the libs on a prescription drug plan we don't need and can't afford, the liberal element steps in and states, "we really need to raise taxes."

Sorry don't buy it. Start cutting programs and eliminating staff. Until that's done seriously, NOBODY should seriously consider raising taxes.

Start by means testing Medicare, limiting benefits, and eliminating the Prescription Drug plan.

Start by not rehiring retirees from the federal government bureaucracies. Encourage early retirement.

NOTE: I'm fully aware, nobody will implement these sensible suggestions, and Obama will probably f.. us up with your suggestions, but F... us for electing the asshole.

Struggling economy, so let's restrict capital, regulate banking more, dry up spending through higher taxes, change the capital gains tax

Why couldn't I think of dumber ideas than that.

I don't have time to give you an economics lesson right now, but google "asymmetric information," for more on why banking needs to be regulated, take a class on quantitative methods at your local JC and then review the empirical literature on the elasticity of the labor supply on the top income bracket, and then we'll have an intelligent discussion.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

I don't have time to give you an economics lesson right now, but google "asymmetric information," for more on why banking needs to be regulated, take a class on quantitative methods at your local JC and then review the empirical literature on the elasticity of the labor supply on the top income bracket, and then we'll have an intelligent discussion.

I know what the f..ing bastards teach in those classes, but I disagree with their methods and assumptions.

You're just referring to Keynsian bullshit, and you know it. Just because one can throw terms around doesn't mean you know about a damn thing about running a business, making a small sub industry function or how to stimulate real growth.

Yes, one can read the "leading" economic publications to arrive any conclusion or to justify any position one desires. That doesn't mean in reality it works. It's rhetoric. In short, it's a political decision to justify what you want to do, wealth redistribution in order to grab power. You can do your regression analyses, paint your fancy graphs, but none of you really wish to benefit anybody other than yourselves. That's the bottom line. Economic wars are fought with words now, not ships and guns.

Macro-economics is bullshit. You don't control or account for enough variables to ever get it right. In order to make it work right, you'd need to be a quasi-benevolent dictator a la those in Singapore, treating the populace as work units of production.

But you have failed to address the consequences of a high level of government employment in non-productive job sectors, the high concentration of the GNP on non-discretionary spending, and whether having a trade deficit is good or bad.

You're not cynical at all at anything coming from your side. Try cynicism.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Macro-economics is bullshit. You don't control or account for enough variables to ever get it right.

hahaaha! this is the best thing you've said the entire thread. you're almost right, cross-country regressions have their weaknesses. but asymmetric information is a micro issue, and macro is still 900% more valid than your theological, process philosophy, textual criticism garbage.

But you have failed to address the consequences of a high level of government employment in non-productive job sectors, the high concentration of the GNP on non-discretionary spending, and whether having a trade deficit is good or bad.

what does the virtue of trade deficits have to do with Obama again?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

hahaaha! this is the best thing you've said the entire thread. you're almost right, cross-country regressions have their weaknesses. but asymmetric information is a micro issue, and macro is still 900% more valid than your theological, process philosophy, textual criticism garbage.



what does the virtue of trade deficits have to do with Obama again?

asymmetric information is a contract concept, where the usual example is that of the used car salesmen. We dumb lawyers discuss that and other concepts whether it's economically feasible to induce breach, so what's your point. Some guys I think name Stiglitz and Spencer or something developed some theories in this area.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

asymmetric information is a contract concept, where the usual example is that of the used car salesmen. We dumb lawyers discuss that and other concepts whether it's economically feasible to induce breach, so what's your point. Some guys I think name Stiglitz and Spencer or something developed some theories in this area.

this is a problem in banking when investment and commercial banks cook their books. hence the need for more regulation. hence the need for an Obama presidency.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

this is a problem in banking when investment and commercial banks cook their books. hence the need for more regulation. hence the need for an Obama presidency.

Bullshit.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In short, it's a political decision to justify what you want to do, wealth redistribution in order to grab power. You can do your regression analyses, paint your fancy graphs, but none of you really wish to benefit anybody other than yourselves. That's the bottom line. Economic wars are fought with words now, not ships and guns.

Not to jump into this bar fight, but there are certainly legitimate reasons for selective redistribution of wealth, it's not simply a means of buying votes through programs (I know that's the conservative fantasy, but if that were true, people on welfare would be making a lot more than they do, and Bill Clinton would have never agreed to welfare reform).

An extreme example of a situation where tax policy could effectively make the whole society (hence economy) improve: El Salvador, where 1% of the nation own 99% of the wealth. This really isn't good for anyone.

Slashing spending to match post tax-cut revenue would be politically untenable, and I'm sure conservatives wouldn't go for the commensurate cuts in weapons programs.

We got here on a sugar high, there's no place to go without some pain.