Continued from August 2010 Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Laffer is one of your economic heroes John and yet you offer absolutely NO defense for how wrong he was when it came to understanding the state of our economy. You base your economic "common sense" and "logic" () on that man John. That means your opinions on economics are worth nothing. Be a man. Own up.

Now who is the real dumbass.
Game. Set. Match. As i was saying.



No dumbass you missed the point totally as usual. Do I really need to go on about all the economist and democrats that believed and said if we only passed the Obama stimulas that we would not go over 8% unemployment. Do I really need to go over all the economist, president and democrats that believed this was the recovery summer.

So if all those democrats (who were suppose to be "in the know" and were warned time and time again) did not know how bad the housing bubble was then how was laffer. Laffer's theory has nothing to do with housing it has everything to do with income tax rates. It was the HOUSING BUBBLE THAT BURST THAT CAUSED THIS DEEP RECESSION!!!!!! NOT THE BUSH TAX CUTS. Fanny and Freddy were the ROOT CAUSE of this deep recession.

The point is, since you feel that way about laffer for not seeing the future in housing, then you also have to feel that every democrat that was saying Fanny and Freddy are doing, "Fine" and "a good job" should be tossed out on there ear, right.



So now here it comes the game ender:

"Orszag: Extend The Bush Tax Cuts"

Yes he is saying ALL of them!!!!!!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...h-tax-cuts.php


We know you are the dumbass that has been proven time and time again.

That is the game, set, and match, you dumb twit.

I love the tactics Havakasha uses.

1.) Flat out deny any merit to an offsetting idea
2.) Discredit / attack the creditibility of the poster
3.) Redirect the conversation

He really ought to consider a career in politics LOL. Just one question Lloyd - why did we bail out Freddie and Fannie - two GSE's?? Why?

"Glad to hear that you are not dismissing Mr. Pooles opinions. A federal Reserve Bank Chairman (12 years) who is not a fan of Fannie and Freddie, but who knows that the private market caused the financial mess we are in, is not what you would call a partisan hack. He knows way more than you or john or myself will EVER know about the mortgage industy.
And another thing, i quote from Mr. Poole repeatedly cause he is a Republican and a person of experience in the mortgage market. If i were to only quote Democrats i am quessing someone like you would simply call me partisan. i quess one cant win either way.

i was thinking more of dumbass as a school yard taunt,and some of the silly things you said to me but to each his own.
The use of the word coward (thought used in humor. See the difference? lol) does draw attention to your inability to call John out on anything and thems the facts. And this just proves it again.
I just cant agree that you have painted a " clear and compelling picture". i dont understand how someone who never heard of non-governmental mortgage lenders and didnt know the fact that 50% of all subprime loans originated with them can say he knows what he is talking about. It seems to me that you are the one who has demonstrated his partisan beliefs from the outset, and the fact is i have demonstrated that the financial and economic crisis has as its cause a complex set of circumstances which the private markets contributed greatly to. That has absolutely nothing to do with political parties and everything to do with facts.

im glad you find it ironic that i menitioned mr. Schiff. But once again note that the point of my post was about MR. LAFFER and supply side economics which somhow you fail to acknowledge knowing anything about or even commenting about. IF you fail to know anything about supply side economics
and or non governmental mortgage lenders is it any wonder that people get kind of concerned about the gaps in you knowledge base. oh yeah forgot the one where you didnt even know the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency for 6 years during Bush's term or that Bush made his main policy prescription the "ownership society".

P.S. Can you think of any other criminals in this financial mess besides Dems? LMFAO. And your not partisan. My ass."

You must have mixed me up with John (or even S&L).

1. Flat out deny any merit to any offsetting idea
2. Discredit/attack the credibility of the poster
3. Redirect the conversation.

Oh by the way did you try to get John to discuss politics in the POLITICS thread or do you prefer to go easy on him?

S&L i think you are actually john Boehner. :)

I believe a combination of Republican and Democratic policies led to the problems of Fannie and Freddie and housing in general. Oh damn, i thought i was the one that is supposed to be so partisan.

P.S. i think you could have put a more fair balance of our posts at the beginning of this new thread but then i am the one who always "hijacks the threads" according to you. LOL. i quess i will just have to answer all the Orszag stuff and other nonsense of John's put down.

I think john forgot about a decade of living beyond our means spurred by free marketers (Bush ownership society) who said we can always have it all.

I never knew John loved Mr. Orzsag so much. He always used to trash him.
First of all Mr. Peter Orzsag offered a political compromise that allows the Bush tax cuts to continue for 2 years and then HE PROPOSED THEY ALL END. John you have to put ALL the facts in your posts.

I disagree with Orzsag. I think the tax cuts should lapse according to law for the top 2% and continue for the middle class. I think that is much more fair.
By the way Mr. Orzsag acknowledged that his proposal will add greatly to the deficit and that is wny they would all have to end in 2 years.
Its kind of ironic that the people who always clamor for cutting our budget deficit are the ones who always oppose it when it runs counter to their ideology (lapsing tax cuts on the rich)

Yes Democrats were wrong on the rate that unemployment would be at by now. They overestimated the benefits of the stimulus, yet lets not forget that the stimulus was about 1/3 tax cuts because of the Republican votes that were needed to pass the stimulus. That despite the fact that almost all economists predicted that stimulus would work better than tax cuts to boost the economy in the short run. Remember that progressives wanted a bigger stimulus with less tax cuts. The CBO (non-partisan) has said the stimulus produced millions of jobs and said the unemployment would probably be at 11% or higher if nothing had be done. I sincerely believe if we had continued with Republican policies under McCain/Palin we would be in a much worse situation. Unfortunately there is no way to prove it.
.The historical fact is that when you combine a bad recessiona and a
financial crisis together you get a downturn that lasts much longer than
a normal recession. Dont take my word just look it up.
Add to that the U.S. is undergoing major structural changes in our economy that will take many
years to deal with

For John to compare Dems getting it wrong on unemployment rate (9.6 to 8%) to Mr. Laffer's comments on the economy is laughable.

Mr. Laffer said this "THE U.S. ECONOMY HAS NEVER BEEN IN BETTER SHAPE"
This was said in Aug 2006 shortly before we entered in the 2nd worst recession in our history. This is the economist john holds up as the savoir of this country in terms of economic theory. Mr. Laffer is totally discredited.

Finally for john to pretend that this recession was only caused by the housing crisis (and only because of Dems and Fannie and Freddie) is so dishonest that i dont even know where to start. He forgets a decade of debt and lack of savings that Americans took on in all phases of their lives. He forgot the stock market bubble. He forgot the banking/financial crisis. And on and on and on.

John is a truly blind ideologue but then that seems to be ok with S&L.

1.) "S&L i think you are actually john Boehner" - good one, funny.

2.) "I believe a combination of Republican and Democratic policies led to the problems of Fannie and Freddie and housing in general." Wow! This is a first. I would agree that Bush pulled the housing rope as well. It's documented. On the flip side, the party wanted to increase regulations as evidenced by the video.

3.) "i think you could have put a more fair balance of our posts at the beginning of this new thread...." You can populate this new thread as you see fit.

4.) "I think john forgot about a decade of living beyond our means spurred by free marketers (Bush ownership society) who said we can always have it all." I'm curious how you arrived at this? It seems like a leap to me. In fact, if you don't mind me going back to my talking points, I would suggest that Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and Monetary policy allowed consumers to spend more than they should. As the faux demand for housing went up, so did home values and home equity loans which lead to consumers having a feeling of well being. But like all things "faux"................... Watch the Schiff video again. Even if you don't agree with his economics, maybe you can get a laff at Laffer.

S&L Boehner you partisan hack, NO that isnt a first. i have said it before dumbass :). Since you wont make John come here i thought i would bring a little of his language.

Democrats are usually the party pushing for regulation.
Just look at the financial reform bil (derivative trading etc).
You might be forgettting about other mortgage regulations the Dems were pushing that Republicans opposed. We know there are historical gaps in your knowledge base so... :)

You dont believe we were living beyond our means?

Well your very own Mr. Schiff said it i believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

S&L Boehner you partisan hack, NO that isnt a first. i have said it before dumbass :). Since you wont make John come here i thought i would bring a little of his language.

Democrats are usually the party pushing for regulation.
Just look at the financial reform bil (derivative trading etc).
You might be forgettting about other mortgage regulations the Dems were pushing that Republicans opposed. We know there are historical gaps in your knowledge base so... :)

You dont believe we were living beyond our means?

Well your very own Mr. Schiff said it i believe.

---

I can't make John do anything he doesn't want to do.

I know we were living beyond our means. As development after development went up I constantly asked two questions - 1.) where are these people coming from? and 2.) how can they afford it?

It's supply and demand Lloyd. There was false demand created by easy money. Now you want to debate how the easy money became easy? You know my answer to that question. The false demand was the reason for the developments I note above. The false demand caused excess consumption. You get a new house, all of a sudden you need a new carpet, new pans, new furniture, landscaping............

And there you go again with your tactics - attack, belittle the one with an opposing opinion. There's a video link to several republicans asking for reform and several democrats calling them idiots. It's a smoking gun Lloyd. Embrace it for Christ sake. It happened. You can cite democrat history, but here's a VIDEO. C'mon, or, big or, come up with your own video.

Of course you cant make him do anything he doesnt want to. Nor do you ever try. Only I "hijack the threads". Thats ok i dont take it personally i know just how partisan you really are. :D

Ah the chicken and egg thing. I dont think its as easy as you want to seperate those two things out. i know what you want to be true. I just dont think it is true.

S&L come on you are more intelligent than that. You take some videos that John posts and take that as the whole truth. Its absurd. I can show plenty of videos that show a different picture. We are not arguing that Democrats have made mistakes. Of course they have. But you are sounding more and more like Boehner every day and boy has he taken hypocrisy to new heights. Lets just hope you dont have his tan.

Oh, you have never belittled me? Cpme on lets be real.
Enough of this discussion as we seem to be getting nowhere.
Hang out with John for a while. :)

[QUOTE=Havakasha;64670]Of course you cant make him do anything he doesnt want to. Nor do you ever try. Only I "hijack the threads". Thats ok i dont take it personally i know just how partisan you really are. :D[QUOTE]

OK, busted.

Since this discussion is going no where, how about commenting on this? In the past, you "have to get back to it", or "don't have time." I believe you posted an article once, but it didn't really address this guys points.

The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases
By Bill Frezza


The debate rages over whether our country can afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Progressives argue that the ballooning Federal debt is a legacy of these tax cuts.

There is one unreported flaw in this argument. As data from the IRS show, George Bush did not cut income taxes. He increased them. In fact, Bush increased income taxes not only for the rich but for at least half of all tax filers. Only the poor paid less income tax under George Bush than under Bill Clinton.

WHAT?

Go to the IRS website and add up the numbers for yourself. During the eight years of the Clinton Administration the Federal government collected a total of $5.66 trillion dollars in individual income taxes. During the eight years of the Bush Administration the Federal government collected approximately $7.45 trillion dollars in individual income taxes. The rich - that is, the top 1% of taxpayers - not only forked over a trillion dollars more to Uncle Sam under Bush than under Clinton, their share of the income tax burden increased from 33% to 38%.

But wait, there's more.

During the eight years of the Clinton Administration the rich paid income taxes at a blended rate of 20.6%. During the eight years of the Bush Administration the rich paid income taxes at a blended tax rate of 21.3%. Yes, the actual tax rate that matters when you fill out the bottom line of your tax return went up for the rich under George Bush.

How can this be?

The explanation for this apparent paradox is simple. The problem is that no one wants to hear it. Not the pundits. Not the press. Certainly not the leaders of the Democratic Party. Oddly enough, even the Republicans are oblivious.
George Bush cut the marginal tax rates paid by the rich, and everyone else for that matter. These are the tax cuts that are about to expire. The marginal tax rate is the rate you pay on the last dollars you earn. The blended tax rate is the effective rate you end up paying across all of your income. The total amount of tax you pay equals your blended tax rate times your taxable income. And it's the total amount of tax collected that finances the government.

As hard as this is for some people to accept, the rich change their behavior when their marginal tax rates are reduced. The working rich work harder and longer. They expand their businesses, creating jobs. The idle rich shift investments from lower yield tax-free government bonds into higher-return taxable investments, the kind of investments that finance companies that create jobs. Exactly the opposite happens when marginal tax rates go up, as they are scheduled to do unless Congress acts.

The rich do not get richer because they are stupid. Being rational people, they are usually happy to pay more taxes if at the same time they also take home more after-tax dollars. And that's exactly what they did under George Bush. The math works because the pie gets bigger.

So if social justice is your goal, go ahead and raise marginal tax rates for the rich. Making the rich poorer will certainly reduce inequality. Why should you care if the total amount of taxes paid by the rich goes down, economic growth goes down, fewer jobs get created, and the government falls deeper into debt? In fact, this is a perfect way to create a permanent crisis that never goes to waste. As a full throated Progressive you can run for Congress claiming that you are looking out for the little guy because you are sticking it to the rich.

Meanwhile, when you asleep-at-the-switch Republicans finally learn how to tell the difference between nominal tax rates and actual tax collections, please fess up to the real source of the ballooning national debt. Your guy George Bush was the biggest spender in American history, at least until his incompetent presidency delivered Barack Obama to the Oval Office. Bush spent $5 trillion dollars more of our money than Bill Clinton. Had Bush frozen the federal budget when he came into office he would have left Obama a surplus. One of the saddest things about our broken two-party system is that every time Republicans gain power they spend like Democrats. Understand now why the Tea Party wants nothing to do with your incumbents?

Do these facts surprise you? Is this the first time you've heard that George Bush was the biggest tax collector in American history? Were you aware that the rich paid a higher blended tax rate under Bush than under Clinton? Since reporters seem more willing to parrot talking points than dig up facts, spend a little time on www.irs.gov and see for yourself. You can also ponder what this selective national blindness says about our dysfunctional politico-pundit complex and its handmaidens in the media.

Bill Frezza is a partner at Adams Capital Management, an early-stage venture capital firm. He can be reached at bill@vereverus.com. If you would like to subscribe to his weekly column, drop a note to publisher@vereverus.com.


http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...ses_98625.html

OK i will look back at that boring article once again when i have some time.
It feels an awful like homework.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

OK i will look back at that boring article once again when i have some time.
It feels an awful like homework.

---

You did it again you rascal LOL. But at least this time you come up with a new one labeling this contrarian piece "boring".

This data suggests that Bush's "failed policy" seemed to actually work. You say the Bush tax cuts ran us into this recession, and here this guy says they worked toward collecting more tax revenue.

I used to golf with this guy. We'd see three balls on the green and one off. The saying was, "someone is going to be awfully disappointed" lol.

So, who will be disappointed - Havakasha or Bill Frezza??

Now let's extend this little ideolgy to religion - lot's of people are going to be awfully disappointed lol. OK, let's not.

Definitelty Bill Frezza will lose. He sounds like an ideologue. Tell me more about him and his background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Definitelty Bill Frezza will lose. He sounds like an ideologue. Tell me more about him and his background.

---

Stop it with the diversion tactic lol. Address the article. Maybe if you can address this, John can address your two questions?? You partisans BOTH play the same game.

The big difference is that i will eventually address the question.
John will NEVER cause he knows i have him pinned down if he does.
Classic John. He makes stock predictions based on political ideology and
thats a HUGE mistake.

Stop putting us on the same level. john is clearly a nutjob no matter what you say.
Afterall its perfectly clear he intimidates you. So scary. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Afterall its perfectly clear he intimidates you. So scary. lol.

---

LOL - good one Lloyd!! Way off base.

Anyway, I trust that this author can add, and his addition is correct. So how did Bush collect more income tax dollars than Clinton?

Damn was that hard hitting S&L. I love how you took on Laffer and in essence John. "laffer didnt have the last laugh". How about Laffer was completely wrong! I didnt know it would be so hard for YOU to say it. LOL.

I will start lookiing for an answer to your question. Can i ask you a favor as well and see if you can find anyone else who concurs with this article.I just dont want to spend a lot of time looking into something if its an outlier. Thanks.

P.S.Thanks for trying to get John to come to the politics thread and to stop hijacking the stock thread. :)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=203

I think I found the answer.

Did you read this because it directly responds to the Tax Foundation chart?
It says your chart contains some mathematical errors.
It also goes on to say that it doesnt take into account some inflation adjustments.
I think its an example of why you have to go to different sources when discussing
statistics. They are easily manipulated to say what you want them to say.
Is this the chart that Bill Frezza relies on?

And now i would like you to tell my why the myths (in my other thread) about the
Bush tax cuts are incorrect.
Thanks.



The column of statistics on
Bush is on the right. Clinton is on the left.


Comparing Income Taxes under Bill Clinton and George Bush

by Gerald Prante and Alicia Hansen

Recently an incorrect comparison of income taxes under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been making the rounds of the internet, showing up in forwarded e-mails and on numerous blogs and message boards. (See examples here, here, here, and here.)

This message shows that income taxes under George Bush are lower than income taxes under Bill Clinton, and it relies on Tax Foundation data to make this comparison. The author used a Tax Foundation chart showing the federal individual income tax rates and brackets from 1913 to the present to calculate the income taxes paid by hypothetical married and single taxpayers at various income levels under 1999 tax law and 2008 tax law.

While the basic message of the comparison is correct (federal income taxes have indeed fallen under George Bush for groups at all points on the income spectrum), the chart created by the author of this comparison contains some mathematical errors. Furthermore, the comparisons are exaggerated by the fact that annual inflation adjustments in the tax code would have lowered tax bills in 2008 relative to 1999 under a constant nominal income amount.

The table below presents the correct amount of tax paid by each of the hypothetical taxpayers in the comparison. Note that this comparison does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the taxpayers in these examples take the standard deduction and do not have children.

(Click here if you're having trouble viewing the table.)

Individual Income Tax Due in 2008,
Bush Law versus Clinton Law
For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children
Clinton Bush Tax Cuts
Single, income of 30,000 $3,157.50 $2,756.25
Single, income of 50,000 $7,262.50 $6,606.25
Married, income of $50,000 $5,085.00 $4,012.50
Married, income of $60,000 $6,585.00 $5,512.50
Single, income of $75,000 $14,262.50 $12,856.25
Married, income of $75,000 $9,426.50 $7,762.50
Single, income of $125,000* $29,378.50 $26,472.25
Married, income of $125,000* $23,426.50 $19,462.50
*This chart does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax

Well, here's my answer for Frezza's observation, and it is mostly mathematical. One, as you identified, there has to be some correction for inflation. Two, if you look at the link I posted, tax receipts typically grow with time. In fact, you can plot a regression line and try to predict tax receipts based strictly as a function of time (although the correlation coefficient will not be that good). So although Bush did in fact collect more receipts, that number can be compared to what he "should" have generated. I'm sure some economist has developed a statistically significant model for tax receipts one could use for the basis of comparison.

Lastly, if you look at the link I posted, his biggest tax collection years just so happen to coincide with...................................... the bubble (2006 - 2008). Maybe people were getting fatter and happier and paying more taxes on a false premise? I don't know if that is a plausible variable or not. One can also say that those years were indeed prosperous? But that prosperity really took a $hit.