Thread: Why is this guy not one of our elected leaders?

The solutions often seem fairly simple and practical when you're not an insider with an election on the horizon. The right doesn't want to increase revenues, even by closing loopholes, while the left is insisting on tax increases come hell or high water. Neither side wants to budge for fear of losing support of their base. It's not rocket science. But unfortunately, posturing seems to be far more important than coming up with practical solutions.

We've probably got some of the worst leadership running the govt right now than at any point in US history.

The pledge allows for closing loopholes if it is matched dollar for dollar with other tax reductions.

I haven't read up on all the details of the pledge. But do you mean matched with tax reductions or spending cuts? I think the loopholes should be closed regardless. That alone would be the equivalent, or greater, than the tax hikes Obama is talking about.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Time for a truce on debt-ceiling talks - CNN.com

This is a perfect compromise.

Why is he not one of the elected leaders? Because he has not run for office, and probably does not want to to run for office. In many ways, Gergen can accomplish more by not being in office.

I've always liked his pragmatism. He's not a partisan, really.

As for the compromise, I don't see any compromise as perfect. The fact the US gov is in this mess, shows how utterly screwed up it is.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

I haven't read up on all the details of the pledge. But do you mean matched with tax reductions or spending cuts? I think the loopholes should be closed regardless. That alone would be the equivalent, or greater, than the tax hikes Obama is talking about.

I agree, but the GOP can't close them. They would define that as a tax increase. What they signed wasn't really a tax pledge at all, it was a pledge to not increase revenue unless you give that revenue directly back. It's basically something a moron would sign. Everyone knows we need to generate revenue, and they basically stated they won't do 2 out of the 3 things, and the third is predicated on the other 2. Revenue will ony be increased if they

1)Increase the tax base, which they won't do because that would be increasing taxes. If companies were hiring this would suffice, they're not

2)Increase the amount the current base pays, again, a tax increase.

3)People buy shit and companies hire, neither are happening.

People aren't buying stuff, and job creators aren't hiring. We have high debt that needs to be paid back, and leaders who believe the easiest way to pay that back is to slice $90 billion off a $1.5 trillion a year deficit. If they did that every year for the next ten years it would nearly double our total debt. We are going to be paying more taxes, all of us. We might as well get it out of the way.

To simply raise the marginal rates would only make those who can't get out of paying (i.e. those receiving a W-2) pay more, while the ultra wealthy, who can camouflage their true income, continue to pay nothing. Closing the loopholes would take a dramatic overhaul of the tax code though. Raising taxes right now would likely delay any recovery that might be on the horizon, while closing loopholes would accomplish the goal of increasing revenues by making those who are still in good shape pay their share without as much of a dramatic impact on the economy as a whole.

We ultimately have to start living within our means. The fed govt already rakes in over $2 trillion per year in revenues. That number would be significantly higher if loopholes were closed. I saw some of the funkiest accounting in my banking days. People earning millions and literally paying nothing in taxes. It is more rampant than most people realize.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Raising taxes right now would likely delay any recovery that might be on the horizon, while closing loopholes would accomplish the goal of increasing revenues by making those who are still in good shape pay their share without as much of a dramatic impact on the economy as a whole.

exactly where do you get your data from? the IRS collected 100B in taxes last year where are you coming up with 2T? the FRB transferring toxic assets from their balance sheets to the US treasury isn't real money it's the re-classification of debt.

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

$2.1T for 2010

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

$2.1T for 2010

how exactly are receipts from social security and retirement accounts revenue? that's money that's already spent it just hasn't been paid out yet.

Originally Posted by LAM

how exactly are receipts from social security and retirement accounts revenue? that's money that's already spent it just hasn't been paid out yet.

It's an unfunded liability, but it's still money that can and will be paid out. That's why it's misleading for Barry to say that ss and medicare checks may not go out if we don't raise the debt ceiling. Clearly, the $ is there.

Originally Posted by LAM

how exactly are receipts from social security and retirement accounts revenue? that's money that's already spent it just hasn't been paid out yet.

It's there voodoo economics that what it is.

Originally Posted by Ichigo

It's there voodoo economics that what it is.

I love how the die hard GOP'ers dance around the issue of low wages or totally avoid it. I would love to know by what manner of economic magic can half of the country live "with in it's means" when it's paying 2011 prices but making 1980's wages..

I just want someone to please explain to me. If those greedy millionaires tax breaks were to cease, they say, there would be no job creation.

Well, those greedy fucks have had tax breaks since 2000, and where are all the jobs?

Black and white, there's no gray here. Why do people want to stick up for these bastards on the wrong, they ain't arguing for you!

Originally Posted by IronAddict

I just want someone to please explain to me. If those greedy millionaires tax breaks were to cease, they say, there would be no job creation.

Well, those greedy fucks have had tax breaks since 2000, and where are all the jobs?

Black and white, there's no gray here. Why do people want to stick up for these bastards on the wrong, they ain't arguing for you!

It's a complete mystery. It's also a total scam perpetrated on the American people.

Originally Posted by IronAddict

I just want someone to please explain to me. If those greedy millionaires tax breaks were to cease, they say, there would be no job creation.

Well, those greedy fucks have had tax breaks since 2000, and where are all the jobs?

Black and white, there's no gray here. Why do people want to stick up for these bastards on the wrong, they ain't arguing for you!

corporate taxes and taxes on capital are the lowest EVER in US history right now. they were and never have been the problem with job creation, it's simply more supply-side vodoo economics.

even restoring them to previous levels the GOP now calls a "tax increase"

Originally Posted by IronAddict

I just want someone to please explain to me. If those greedy millionaires tax breaks were to cease, they say, there would be no job creation.

Well, those greedy fucks have had tax breaks since 2000, and where are all the jobs?

Black and white, there's no gray here. Why do people want to stick up for these bastards on the wrong, they ain't arguing for you!

There were plenty of jobs to go around until just a few years ago; around late 2007 is when the shit hit the fan. Of course, the economic prosperity was basically a house of cards. With interest rates artificially low for years and years, it was really nothing but a drunken borrowing orgy.

If a tax increase is just going to pump more money into the govt so they can piss it away, like the $787B pork aka stimulus package, then it won't make any difference. It may feel good for the left wing base to see the govt sock it to the wealthy, but we're not going to be able to tax and spend our way out of a depression. Anyone who thinks the additional revenue will go towards paying off debt or closing the deficit is living in a fantasy world.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

If a tax increase is just going to pump more money into the govt so they can piss it away, like the $787B pork aka stimulus package, then it won't make any difference. It may feel good for the left wing base to see the govt sock it to the wealthy, but we're not going to be able to tax and spend our way out of a depression. Anyone who thinks the additional revenue will go towards paying off debt or closing the deficit is living in a fantasy world.

just like your fantasy of 50% of the country "living within their means" off 1980s' wages in 2011.

maybe if the republican governors had actually spent the money from ARRA on job creation vs paying down state debt which it was not meant for more jobs would have been created. just like the republicans letting the buy american bonds program expire. they have done everything they could to make the employment and and state debt problem worst just to position the party better for the 2012 election.

not a single piece of legislation out of the House since the GOP took control

until wages are brought up revenue's at the state and federal level will continue to decrease every year until wage inequality is corrected. every year more money in the form of profits are taken out of circulation out of the US economy and sit idle in various forms. this is why the GDP of all OECD countries has steadily decreased since adopting neo-liberal economic policies and it will continue to shrink every year UNTIL more money is left in circulation.

it's basic mathematics.

The biggest issue with Taxes is that we just look at the numbers and don't take into account the behavior that is followed by the numbers.

How do the very wealthy invest there money when taxes are low versus how do they invest their money when taxes are high?

Ill give you hint, when taxes are low, the money gets hoarded.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Ill give you hint, when taxes are low, the money gets hoarded.

exactly...and this is what the economic historical data shows in the US.

hoarding removes money (capital) from the active economy, this is why the GDP decreases slowly every year. it's exactly why the rich have an excess of capital sitting idle in various forms while on the other side of the equation there is tons of idle labor (9% unemployment ).

Originally Posted by LAM

exactly...and this is what the economic historical data shows in the US.

hoarding removes money (capital) from the active economy, this is why the GDP decreases slowly every year.

I know this is the internet and anyone could make this up, but I have relatives that own a few businesses and I remember in the 90's he had 9 businesses, but always said only three of them actually made money, the other ones pretty much broke even. When the "great tax cut" came he started closing those less fruitful businesses.

I completely understand why he did it, and it was within his right, but those workers lost jobs, those suppliers lost sales, and probably followed in his footsteps of downsizing. It's a vicious cycle.

Originally Posted by LAM

just like your fantasy of 50% of the country "living within their means" off 1980s' wages in 2011.

maybe if the republican governors had actually spent the money from ARRA on job creation vs paying down state debt which it was not meant for more jobs would have been created. just like the republicans letting the buy american bonds program expire. they have done everything they could to make the employment and and state debt problem worst just to position the party better for the 2012 election.

not a single piece of legislation out of the House since the GOP took control

until wages are brought up revenue's at the state and federal level will continue to decrease every year until wage inequality is corrected. every year more money in the form of profits are taken out of circulation out of the US economy and sit idle in various forms. this is why the GDP of all OECD countries has steadily decreased since adopting neo-liberal economic policies and it will continue to shrink every year UNTIL more money is left in circulation.

it's basic mathematics.

They have proposed many things since taking control of the house, but it's hard to get anything passed when the Senate and Whitehouse are still controlled by the dems. On that note, why haven't the dems come up with a budget in the last two years. Obama proposed one that wasn't even passed by his own party.

Profits made by publicly traded corps aren't sitting idle either. Some of it is passed onto shareholders as dividends, hence back into circulation. Higher taxes, however, will take $ out of circulation and will most likely go towards pet projects, as much of the stimulus money did. Afterall, wasn't the stimulus money supposed to go towards shovel ready jobs to put people back to work?

If your credit cards were maxed out to the point that you couldn't meet your monthly obligations, would you look at your household budget and cut out expenses that were unnecessary, or would you go to the bank and announce that you're "raising your debt ceiling" and need another $35K. It is basic math and common sense, like you said. Also, I seriously doubt that 50% of the country is living within their means. Both individual household and the fed govt haven't lived within their means in decades.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

It is basic math and common sense, like you said.

This is the problem, economics isn't basic math or common sense. That's why common people aren't economist.

It is no coincidence that we pulled out of the recession in the early 90's after George H.W. Bush raised Taxes.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

This is the problem, economics isn't basic math or common sense. That's why common people aren't economist.

It is no coincidence that we pulled out of the recession in the early 90's after George H.W. Bush raised Taxes.

Yes, a balanced budget would help immensely. Taxes will eventually have to go back up somewhat. I just don't think now is the time to do it. If we hadn't been throwing money into a bottomless pit in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 10 years, the Bush tax cuts probably wouldn't have led to such a huge deficit and massive debt.

This recession is different than any other since the great depression. IMO, we are in a depression right now. The "recovery" that supposedly started last summer was smoke and mirrors. The fact is, we're no better off now than we were 3 years ago. I'm starting to think that the current situation is just going to be the status quo from now on. That's a good part of the reason why I'm getting TFO of here and heading overseas.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

They have proposed many things since taking control of the house, but it's hard to get anything passed when the Senate and White house are still controlled by the dems. On that note, why haven't the dems come up with a budget in the last two years. Obama proposed one that wasn't even passed by his own party.

Profits made by publicly traded corps aren't sitting idle either. Some of it is passed onto shareholders as dividends, hence back into circulation. Higher taxes, however, will take $ out of circulation and will most likely go towards pet projects, as much of the stimulus money did. Afterall, wasn't the stimulus money supposed to go towards shovel ready jobs to put people back to work?

If your credit cards were maxed out to the point that you couldn't meet your monthly obligations, would you look at your household budget and cut out expenses that were unnecessary, or would you go to the bank and announce that you're "raising your debt ceiling" and need another $35K. It is basic math and common sense, like you said. Also, I seriously doubt that 50% of the country is living within their means. Both individual household and the fed govt haven't lived within their means in decades.

not sure about the Dems and the budget. I'm a problem solver solutions are for someone else and the root cause of the economic problem in the US is wage inequality. the middle class hasn't been truly prosperous since the 60's and 70's, the rest has been false prosperity through the opening up of consumer credit to allow spending to continue as wages remained stagnant.

just about all the GOP governors spent their stimulus money paying down debt which is was not meant for, paying down debt doesn't create jobs. the same goes for the GOP allowing the BOB program to expire that would have allowed capital investment in local government providing monies for those "shovel" ready jobs but the GOP put the kibosh on that also.

higher wages decreases the welfare state, but the ever expanding military complex that's a neo-liberal thing. spreading "democracy" means multi-nationals can continue to spread like the viruses that they are, funneling the profits of labor up the chain to the few at the top.

the majority of stocks are owned by by the few that already have an excess of wealth so it is another form of idle capital. making more money of capital isn't productive but putting people to work is.

everything can't be about making higher and higher profits annually some businesses just have to break even and keep people employed. if you ever bothered to read any of the reports written by economists all over the globe you would understand how privatization decreases GDP and how GSE's are actually a good thing, they just need to be re-structured to where they are not constantly losing money annually but more or less breaking even.

Originally Posted by LAM

not sure about the Dems and the budget. I'm a problem solver solutions are for someone else and the root cause of the economic problem in the US is wage inequality. the middle class hasn't been truly prosperous since the 60's and 70's, the rest has been false prosperity through the opening up of consumer credit to allow spending to continue as wages remained stagnant.

just about all the GOP governors spent their stimulus money paying down debt which is was not meant for, paying down debt doesn't create jobs. the same goes for the GOP allowing the BOB program to expire that would have allowed capital investment in local government providing monies for those "shovel" ready jobs but the GOP put the kibosh on that also.

higher wages decreases the welfare state, but the ever expanding military complex that's a neo-liberal thing. spreading "democracy" means multi-nationals can continue to spread like the viruses that they are, funneling the profits of labor up the chain to the few at the top.

the majority of stocks are owned by by the few that already have an excess of wealth so it is another form of idle capital. making more money of capital isn't productive but putting people to work is.

everything can't be about making higher and higher profits annually some businesses just have to break even and keep people employed. if you ever bothered to read any of the reports written by economists all over the globe you would understand how privatization decreases GDP and how GSE's are actually a good thing, they just need to be re-structured to where they are not constantly losing money annually but more or less breaking even.

I'd like to see higher wages also. But, I've always believed that globalization and "free trade", which has been embraced by both parties, is the key culprit. I have read a lot of articles on both sides of the argument and I believe that NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China have all gone a long way towards depressing wages. All that those policies have done is sent manufacturing overseas and flooded the US with cheap labor via illegal immigration. The problem is that the toothpaste is already out of the tube and we can't waive a wand and simply increase wages at this point.

If you have a 401K or and IRA, and some of your savings is invested in mutual funds, then you are a stock owner also and benefit when dividends are paid out. Also, a lot of the stimulus $ did go towards keeping state employees on the payroll, at least temporarily. The problem is that it runs out over time and ultimately, many police officers, firefighters, teachers, etc., will still be laid off in the end.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

I'd like to see higher wages also. But, I've always believed that globalization and "free trade", which has been embraced by both parties, is the key culprit. I have read a lot of articles on both sides of the argument and I believe that NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China have all gone a long way towards depressing wages. All that those policies have done is sent manufacturing overseas and flooded the US with cheap labor via illegal immigration. The problem is that the toothpaste is already out of the tube and we can't waive a wand and simply increase wages at this point.

If you have a 401K or and IRA, and some of your savings is invested in mutual funds, then you are a stock owner also and benefit when dividends are paid out. Also, a lot of the stimulus $ did go towards keeping state employees on the payroll, at least temporarily. The problem is that it runs out over time and ultimately, many police officers, firefighters, teachers, etc., will still be laid off in the end.

stocks are not real money they are simply an estimated "value" of a commodity, product or service..

globalization is a misnomer, it's really nothing but the spread of capital across international boundaries while immigration policies (and low wages) keep labor restrained. if profits were shared more equally it would not be such a bad thing but that is against the low wage labor neo-liberal economic model as it has not only subdued the power of labor since the 80's it has crushed it. this has happened specifically in the US which has the lowest rate of unionization out of all OECD countries and coincidentally the highest amount of low pay out of all OECD countries at 25% of the labor force.

speculation in the markets was not nearly as high when taxes and interest rates where higher all of these problems are correlated. when wage inequality wasn't so high they had more to lose when the economy tanked but now it doesn't effect them. the unemployment rate on wall street never gets higher than 4-5%.

only 20% of the US makes more than 90K or higher with the majority of income going to the top 1-2%. once adjusted for inflation that 90K is still only 32K in 1980 dollars but that's equal to what almost 3 full time wage earners was making back then. in 2010 the median househould income in the US with 2 full-time wage earners is about 1K less than what 1 full time male wage earner was making in 1980.

the majority of jobs in the service sector are paying between $8-$14/hr USD.

low wages are a very significant economic problem...

Well, certainly if you took anyone's income and adjusted it for inflation for the last 30 years, it's going to be lower. Frankly, I would've thought that less than 20% earned >$90K. I do agree that artificially low interest rates played an enormous role in the RE bubble that tanked the economy, starting in late 2007. The FRB is the culprit there. There was no reason for the Federal Funds Rate to be at 1% for so many years. That's what caused the drunken orgy with RE for most of the last decade.

IDK what role that lower tax rates played, but when the prime rate is 4% on loans and credit lines, it makes it a lot easier for home builders and other speculators to float debt for a long time and take on more debt than they normally would. If the fed had started raising rates sooner, it wouldn't have gotten out of hand the way it did.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Well, certainly if you took anyone's income and adjusted it for inflation for the last 30 years, it's going to be lower. Frankly, I would've thought that less than 20% earned >$90K. I do agree that artificially low interest rates played an enormous role in the RE bubble that tanked the economy, starting in late 2007. The FRB is the culprit there. There was no reason for the Federal Funds Rate to be at 1% for so many years. That's what caused the drunken orgy with RE for most of the last decade.

IDK what role that lower tax rates played, but when the prime rate is 4% on loans and credit lines, it makes it a lot easier for home builders and other speculators to float debt for a long time and take on more debt than they normally would. If the fed had started raising rates sooner, it wouldn't have gotten out of hand the way it did.

yes the majority of wages are going to be lower once adjusted for inflation but incomes for those at the top has increased several hundred percent AFTER adjusting for inflation.

another thing that most don't realize about jobs in the service sector. once you take out jobs in finance (those involved with servicing loans, etc.) most that remain are in fast food and retail. and all those little company's are nothing but subsidiary's of various parent company's. take for example Yumi Brand, Inc. they own Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, A&W, Long John's Silver, etc. so all those employees are technically working for the same company. Adidias owns Rebook, who owns Greg Norman, Ashworth and Rockport, etc. you can trace hundreds of all these subsidiaries up to a couple of dozen parent company's.