The party of no-

[nathanm]

I don't know that I've ever heard Gaspar say that the extension of the Bush cuts should not be paired with a cut in spending.

He's been calling for spending cuts as a separate issue, unrelated to tax policy.

Either a person wants to do something about the deficit or they don't. You don't get to have it both ways. If you're trying to cut the deficit, cutting taxes is exactly the opposite of what one should do. People who are concerned about the deficit want to cut spending, not cut taxes. If you do both, you're not improving the situation.

Personally, as I've been saying for months, if not longer, the deficit doesn't matter a whit at present. As long as the Eurozone is in the smile, we have nothing to worry about on that front. Where the hell else are people going to put their money? In a Euro that may be completely gone in a year or two if they continue down their path of austerity?

[Gaspar]

I don't know that I've ever heard Gaspar say that the extension of the Bush cuts should not be paired with a cut in spending.

Nope!  I expect them to be.  In fact. . .I would rather see massive spending cuts than the total extension.  I could accept the "Obama Compromise"  if it was paired with a complete halt on ALL new spending and cutbacks to existing programs.

I wish someone would propose such an intelligent deal. . .Oh! Wait! What about the OBRPDR (Obama's Blue Ribbon Panel on Deficit Reduction)?

I guess we've already opted to sweep them under the rug.   

[Conan71]

He's been calling for spending cuts as a separate issue, unrelated to tax policy.

Either a person wants to do something about the deficit or they don't. You don't get to have it both ways. If you're trying to cut the deficit, cutting taxes is exactly the opposite of what one should do. People who are concerned about the deficit want to cut spending, not cut taxes. If you do both, you're not improving the situation.

Personally, as I've been saying for months, if not longer, the deficit doesn't matter a whit at present. As long as the Eurozone is in the smile, we have nothing to worry about on that front. Where the hell else are people going to put their money? In a Euro that may be completely gone in a year or two if they continue down their path of austerity?

I think we are seeing what unsustainability of an ever-growing government teat looks like.  Personally, I'm a fan of austerity.  We've got just about everyone but the middle class looking for their pound of flesh or personal service from the government.  Corporations and the wealthy seek all sorts of slick accounting advantages for tax avoidance because they provide the jobs and goods which keep the economy moving.  They also seek regulatory advantages like that POS food safety bill.  On the lower end, the poor expect to not have to work and the government will feed and house them.

Speaking of the food safety bill, when did it become prudent to reward negligence and incompetence with $1.2 bln and a whole new bureaucracy to basically oversee what USDA and FDA are already chartered to do?  That wouldn't fly in the private sector.  That would be like asking my boss for a raise and a company car after I went AWOL for two weeks on a drinking binge.

We will know in a year or two how austerity works, won't we?

[Gaspar]

He's been calling for spending cuts as a separate issue, unrelated to tax policy.

Either a person wants to do something about the deficit or they don't. You don't get to have it both ways. If you're trying to cut the deficit, cutting taxes is exactly the opposite of what one should do. People who are concerned about the deficit want to cut spending, not cut taxes. If you do both, you're not improving the situation.

Personally, as I've been saying for months, if not longer, the deficit doesn't matter a whit at present. As long as the Eurozone is in the smile, we have nothing to worry about on that front. Where the hell else are people going to put their money? In a Euro that may be completely gone in a year or two if they continue down their path of austerity?

Nathan, I'm really starting to think that you have your own personal dialog going with me in your HEAD!

I think my last post on this subject back on the "Tax Cuts Should End" thread was:

Gawd!  How loud do you have to say it?

CUT SPENDING!
and CUT TAXES

Hell, I even used 18pt text.  I want spending cuts more than Christmas presents.  I want them more than tax cuts.  I want them more than whirld peas!  It's the only way we can slow the damage to our system and keep from slouching towards socialism.  I want them.  I want them. I want them.  I want the power turned off on the floor of the House and Senate.  I want them to fly commercial aircraft.  I want congress closed for business except for 1 hour of every day.  I want the printing press responsible for printing 2,000 page bills sold for scrap.  I want us to stop spending. 

I'd also like to see us not shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing the current tax structure to expire.

Got it?

[Conan71]

I want spending cuts more than Christmas presents.  I want them more than tax cuts.  I want them more than whirld peas!  It's the only way we can slow the damage to our system and keep from slouching towards socialism.  I want them.  I want them. I want them.  I want the power turned off on the floor of the House and Senate.  I want them to fly commercial aircraft.  I want congress closed for business except for 1 hour of every day.  I want the printing press responsible for printing 2,000 page bills sold for scrap.  I want us to stop spending. 

I'd also like to see us not shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing the current tax structure to expire.

Got it?

Cool I'll start with my spending cuts by taking you off my Christmas holiday gift list.

[Gaspar]

Cool I'll start with my spending cuts by taking you off my Christmas holiday gift list.

The moderator should just make Christmas Fall Celebration one of those words that is automatically edited when you post.  We just need to come up with a good substitute.

[nathanm]

Nathan, I'm really starting to think that you have your own personal dialog going with me in your HEAD!

I'd also like to see us not shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing the current tax structure to expire.

Got it?

OK, so you want spending cuts. Great! So why are you also advocating for tax cuts if you're so concerned about the deficit? How is giving more money to people who already have it and are choosing not to spend it going to help anything? Why not help the people who will spend it because they're having trouble paying their bills?

Also, your constant complaints of socialism make it very hard to take you seriously. You seem to think that the government is collecting an unusually high amount of taxes, which is categorically not the case. Total receipts are presently well within the range they've been since 1950. (prior to 1950, state and local taxes were almost nonexistent, and as federal taxation has decreased, the lower levels of government have made up for it)

It's not as if the facts are hard to find.

Sorry I don't remember every single post I read here.

[Gaspar]

OK, so you want spending cuts. Great! So why are you also advocating for tax cuts if you're so concerned about the deficit? How is giving more money to people who already have it and are choosing not to spend it going to help anything? Why not help the people who will spend it because they're having trouble paying their bills?

I am also advocating preserving the current tax structure because, as I mentioned above, it would be flat out stupid to allow taxes to rise during a sluggish economy. . .further more, I'd like to break down the rest of your comment, as that it says a lot about you.

How is giving more money to people who already have it and are choosing not to spend it going to help anything?

First of all, the government is not "Giving" it's taking.  This phrase should read

How is taking less money from people who already have it and are choosing to save it going to help anything

you imply that it's the government's job to take money from people who do not choose to spend it in a way that you approve of.

Why not help the people who will spend it because they're having trouble paying their bills?

Indeed!  Cutting taxes on people who are unemployed or struggling to make ends meat does not help them to find a job or advance.  Somthing has to break loose.  Jobs must be created and these people, while they do deserve a break, will do far less to create jobs. 

If you cut taxes you must do it for those who create the jobs AND for those who are struggling.  For instance. . .if the President Obama is successful in cutting taxes on the middle and lower class, but not the "Wealthiest Millionaires and Billionaires," the change will cost the little company I work for an additional $80,000 to $100,000 in taxes for 2011.  We are currently entertaining hiring another developer and another engineer but my boss is waiting to see what happens.  Sure we can do with fewer people, but it would be nice to be able to take some stress off of other departments.

How many other companies are doing the same?  Sure we are sitting on money and ready to pull the trigger on some new positions, but we want to know if we need to reserve some of that money for increased tax burdens.  Is that so hard to understand?

How on earth can you blame companies for being cautious with their finances?  We just watched thousands fail because they weren't.

[Gaspar]

Point is now almost moot. 

The House voted 234-188 Thursday to pass legislation that would extend only some of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, sending the bill to the Senate.

Twenty Democrats broke with their party and voted against the bill after 33 had defected in a previous test vote. Most of those who voted with Republicans on the first ballot were members of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, and many lost their bids to be reelected last month.

Speaker Pelosi gaveled the vote to a close herself, receiving a smattering of applause from Democratic members. The bill extends only the cuts for the middle-class, letting tax breaks end for families earning more than $250,000 per year and individuals making more than $200,000. Congress originally authorized the cuts in 2001 and 2003.


Pelosi and the Dems offer their final middle finger to the people as she slams her giant tax gavel into the podium.

Here are the Democrats who voted against the bill (nine of whom lost their reelection bids):

Rep. Brian Baird (Wash.)
Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.)
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.)
Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
Rep. Ron Klein (Fla.)
Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)
Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)
Rep. Jim Moran (Va.)
Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.)
Rep. Bobby Scott (Va.)
Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Rep. Pete Visclosky (Ind.)

[Conan71]

OK, so you want spending cuts. Great! So why are you also advocating for tax cuts if you're so concerned about the deficit? How is giving more money to people who already have it and are choosing not to spend it going to help anything? Why not help the people who will spend it because they're having trouble paying their bills?

Also, your constant complaints of socialism make it very hard to take you seriously. You seem to think that the government is collecting an unusually high amount of taxes, which is categorically not the case. Total receipts are presently well within the range they've been since 1950. (prior to 1950, state and local taxes were almost nonexistent, and as federal taxation has decreased, the lower levels of government have made up for it)

It's not as if the facts are hard to find.

Sorry I don't remember every single post I read here.

I hate to get hung up on semantics, but where do people keep getting the idea the government is "giving" money to people when they have a tax cut?  They are allowing people to keep more of what they earn.  Saying the gov't is giving them money smacks of class envy rhetoric.

Along those lines confiscating money from people who at the present are hoarding it to repay debt doesn't put money back into play in the economy either unless our creditors use it to employ our workers and corporations to make goods or construct new plants and infrastructure for them (fat chance).

Until the global economy stabilizes, there's not much which can be done to stimulate more spending, not tax cuts, not tax increases.  Confidence will have to increase more than anything.

[nathanm]

I hate to get hung up on semantics, but where do people keep getting the idea the government is "giving" money to people when they have a tax cut?  They are allowing people to keep more of what they earn.  Saying the gov't is giving them money smacks of class envy rhetoric.

Along those lines confiscating money from people who at the present are hoarding it to repay debt doesn't put money back into play in the economy either unless our creditors use it to employ our workers and corporations to make goods or construct new plants and infrastructure for them (fat chance).

Until the global economy stabilizes, there's not much which can be done to stimulate more spending, not tax cuts, not tax increases.  Confidence will have to increase more than anything.

I call it giving because government can't pay for its operations out of taxes, presently, so it is in a sense giving us borrowed money. Now, I don't mind the borrowing, because the countries that keep dumping their goods on us aren't going to stop taking dollars. If they did that, they'd have no market for their goods, but that's what a tax cut right now is, a transfer of wealth from creditor nations to us, the US taxpayer. (If we ever pay it back, it will be in devalued currency)

Tax cuts on high income earners and corporations won't stimulate anything. They've already got money they refuse to spend. Tax cuts for the struggling, on the other hand, immediately put money into the economy, either in the form of increased consumer spending or in the form of a performing home loan. (don't get me started on mortgage lenders!)

And Gaspar, can you please put the challenged math back on the shelf? Preferably one high enough that you can't get to it again? The two top tax brackets will revert to a rate 4.6% higher than it is today. For that to cost a person $80,000 a year would require that they have an AGI of at least $1.9 million. Not such a small business, I guess. Either that or the business has a profit margin 99% of businesses would kill for.

Odd that you'd put off hiring because of a tax increase, though. All that money you pay them doesn't get taxed. (aside from payroll tax, of course, but that's a different discussion)

[Gaspar]

Nate, I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes.  Your view and understanding of business is vastly different than mine.  Don't take that as a slight.  Believe it or not, I used to think exactly as you do. 

[nathanm]

Nate, I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes.  Your view and understanding of business is vastly different than mine.  Don't take that as a slight.  Believe it or not, I used to think exactly as you do. 

Believe it or not, I'm trying to understand your point of view, hence my quibbling with the numbers you are asserting.

[Gaspar]

Believe it or not, I'm trying to understand your point of view, hence my quibbling with the numbers you are asserting.

An AGI of 1.9 million is not a very big company when you have 12-14 employees to support. 

Putting a hit on companies like ours takes all of the wind out of the economic sails.  We are your typical "Small Business."  Our employer works along side us, rewards us when we succeed and digs in with us working late hours on projects when we have dead lines.  When the cost of doing business increases the least efficient among us are given leave to pursue other interests.

Currently we are booming!  We are booming because businesses that use our services are investing in new technology to replace a shrunken workforce.  We are booming because consultants around the country have told businesses who can't afford to hire additional employees that they can realize more efficiency by spending half as much on a more advanced software system.  We are also booming to some extent because businesses have been told that they have to make this type of capital investment before 2011 or they face significantly higher tax on the purchase.

Lets not even talk about "Tax Cuts" because that's not what's on the table.  What is being debated is the preservation of the current structure.  A snapshot of today's tax liability as compared to a snapshot of this time next year.

Preserving the current tax structure for everyone, adds nothing new to the existing economy. . .except confidence! 

Preserving the current tax structure for the middle, and struggling classes and increasing the tax burden for businesses like ours, takes from the existing economy and causes companies like ours to limit exposure even more.  It eliminates confidence while adding nothing to encourage investment.  The Middle-class, and poor have no more money than they did the month before. 

The big debate should be focused again on spending, and trying to increase confidence among businesses, consumers, and those struggling to find a job.

[Conan71]

I don't know what everyone else is seeing in their industries, but I keep talking to more and more in mine and related fields and everyone is learning to do more with less and it looks like it may remain that way.  Sales are good, customers are getting used to longer wait times or purchasing used equipment if they can't get new in a timely manner.

One of the major reasons cited is quite simply many really don't know how long this uptick could last so they don't want to go through the emotional drain of having to lay people off, nor the associated costs of training someone that is lost when they are let go or quit.  There's also still either a lot of uncertainty or misinformation in what new tax rates and healthcare mandates will cost employers which is making them reluctant to hire.  These aren't Faux Snooze slurping dittoheads, these are everyday business owners and managers who simply are saying there's too much uncertainty and liability to hire people.

The government being poised to raise more tax revenue at this time via tax rate increases indicates to business owners that the government doesn't have very much faith in continued economic growth.

Again, I've said it a million times, tax cuts and tax increases don't hire people.  People hire people.  They hire them based on real economic data of a growing business model and sound forecasts as well as favorable business environments and confidence in their government and their government's confidence in them.  Even if business is good, if it's going to cost more to employ people they will find ways to work more efficiently.

If government had to work as efficient as private industry to stay alive, it could easily be halved.