Say Anything Blog

How was the economy doing in 2005?  Was it in a “recession”?

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

And over the last two months, we have lost a sum total of 85,000 jobs.

Does anyone think this could be related to the minimum wage increase or residual slowing from the high price of oil caused by a lack of development of natural resources?  What about from consistent meddling in the housing market?  How about Sarbanes-Oxley causing companies to spend vast amounts on compliance instead of technology?  What about a general fear of new taxes in 2008 and a flight of money into other investment vehicles besides stocks drying up the amount of capital available for businesses?

Master Baiter: Your article says “2005”, but you’ve changed the title to “1995”.  Which is it?  Were you lying before, or are you lying now?

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Damn worldnutdaily

r-Gumby, its a cut and paste...blame WND

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

But you would know that if you clicked on the link.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Master Baiter: You posted it, you are responsible for the content.  Typical leftie; avoiding responsibility for what he does.  “The buck never got here...”

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

What about from consistent meddling in the housing market?

Damn foreclosures.

What about a general fear of new taxes in 2008 and a flight of money into other investment vehicles besides stocks drying up the amount of capital available for businesses?

I was gonna buy a new car but I decided that I better save it for when we have to start paying for them wars.
Other investments.......hmmmmm like investments in other countries? You know countries that make stuff.

Maybe the capital was marked to fantasy and now they realize it was just a fantasy.

“We have a dollar that’s adjusting and I am for a strong dollar.....
Our dollar doesn’t buy as many barrels of oil as it used to and so therefore it’s more expensive for the American people”..... Bush 3/12/08

I clicked on the link and they changed the title, but the text still says October 2005.

I was gonna buy a new car but I decided that I better save it for when we have to start paying for them wars.

Them wars?

[url="http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_S/s7.cfm"]We spend less on defense as a percentage of GDP than at any time prior to 1995.  In 1995, the military went through the BRAC process and downsized the military by a drastic amount.  You can read about BRAC on wikipedia if you like. 

So even with all the WOT defense activity, it is hardly bankrupting the country.

However, <a href="http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Politics/2007/7-01-19-FedChief.htm">Entitlement spending is[/url]:

January 19, 2007 – It was not exactly news, but Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a senate committee yesterday that spending on entitlement programs – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – will climb quickly in the next decade. This warning of the disastrous effect of entitlement spending on the nation as Americans live longer and medical costs climb faster than personal incomes was a common warning from his predecessor, Alan Greenspan…

In fiscal 2006, federal spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid together totaled about 40 percent of federal expenditures, or roughly 8-1/2% of GDP. In the most recent long-term projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), these outlays are projected to increase to 10-1/2% of GDP by 2015, an increase of about 2 percentage points of GDP in less than a decade.

By 2030, according to the CBO, they will reach about 15% of GDP.

“These rising entitlement obligations will put enormous pressure on the federal budget in coming years,” Bernanke said.

Other investments.......hmmmmm like investments in other countries? You know countries that make stuff.

Quite the opposite.  FDI is coming into this country in vast amounts.  It is buying property because the dollar is low.  It is buying American products.  That was not what I was saying.

What I was saying is that by raising the dividend tax and raising the taxes on capital gains, yet allowing exemptions on certain forms of real estate, we create an artificial change in the value of different investments due to the tax advantages.  We do it with the mortgage interest deduction and with the ability to do leveraged buying in real estate.

The Democrat’s tax policies or the mere threat of their tax policies is distorting the market and leading to volatility in the stock market.  Hence why I have my investments in bonds.  Bonds are safe but right now Real Estate and Stocks are at the whims of Democrat tax and “housing bailout” policies.

Real Estate investing and Bond investing does little to stimulate the economy as opposed to stocks which provide capital for job expansion.  Tax changes have major reverberations throughout the economy that are often unintended, and raising taxes on business owners and “the rich” often does not have the intended effect since most of them (and hopefully I am included in that depending on the definition of “rich” that you use) leads them to move their investments to different areas.

Well said, Justin, but I fear your factual and logical answer is way beyond the understanding of these partisan ignoramuses.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

I heard this story debunked on the radio. Turns out that while the number of unemployment claims was at an all time high, as a percentage of the population (which coincidentally has also grown since 1995), the figures are actually about one percent lower as a percentage of population than under Bill Clinton.

So, another pointless meaningless story from rbb.

Why am I not surprised?

Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Damn democrat Congress turning the economy into a big turd. Can’t say we didn’t know they’d do it. Gee, can we rush out and get a dem president too to make it twice as bad....

And what a shitty, shitty life you must lead rbb, that you just sit and wait for something bad (real or perceived) in the economy to happen so that you can try to make a point and make yourself happy (kind of like you guys do with the war). Sorry to tell you all the crap’s happening with dems at the wheel in Congress, but I still pity you anyway. Maybe one day you’ll get something good going in your life.

"Can’t I just eat my waffle....”

-BHO

Ya thanks Justin, I forgot the wars are free of charge.

Who is gonna tell the 40,000+ causalities that we will no longer be paying for their medical care anymore, or the pensions of military personnel. Doesn’t that fall under entitlements?
Their has been a surplus in SS revenue for decades and our gov spends it on other things. We knew sooner or later the surplus would end, that’s a no brainer.

Wars are not free.

“housing bailout” policies

Ya forgot the “hedge fund and wall street bailouts” also.

Real Estate investing and Bond investing does little to stimulate the economy as opposed to stocks which provide capital for job expansion.

Ya the last time there was a lot of real estate investment it created a bubble and they said housing created 80% of all new job growth, and homeowners used the equity in their new found wealth as an ATM machine. Wow, they bought cars, boats, vacations all kinds of fun stuff. Corporations had fun too, new stores, new corporate headquarters, advertising, hired a shit load of employees, revenues increased from the homeowners new ATM, stock values went up.....etc.

So ya I agree real estate does very little to stimulate the economy.

Google Deletes 25% of DoubleClick Workforce
Google (GOOG) will lay off 25% of U.S. employees at newly acquired DoubleClick. DoubleClick’s international unit will see job cuts later in the year.

I guess they are scared of the dems tax policies too

“We have a dollar that’s adjusting and I am for a strong dollar.....
Our dollar doesn’t buy as many barrels of oil as it used to and so therefore it’s more expensive for the American people”..... Bush 3/12/08

Their has been a surplus in SS revenue for decades and our gov spends it on other things. We knew sooner or later the surplus would end, that’s a no
brainer.

The confiscation rate for SS was raised in anticipation of the demographic change to come, but LBJ raided it for his so-called “War on Poverty” and other social engineering pyramid schemes, all of which require ever increasing amounts of money, because they don’t benefit society. So there’s no actual “surplus”.  It’s imaginary, like your knowledge of economics. They are just vote-buying schemes for leftie politicians.
National defense is a legitimate expense of govt, and isn’t an “entitlement” in the same sense as your wasteful social engineering schemes are.

You really need that beginning econ class, boy.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Ya forgot the “hedge fund and wall street bailouts” also.

Was that the one John Edwards ran or the one Chelsea Clinton worked for?

Who is gonna tell the 40,000+ causalities that we will no longer be paying for their medical care anymore, or the pensions of military personnel.

Pensions are a fixed cost.  These folks stay in and retire regardless of whether we are at war or not.  Ironic, becuase I thought the main impact of the war was that no one was joining the Army and it was falling apart?  People were leaving at record pace and not waiting to retire?  What about all the pensions saved by the war not getting new recruits?  At least be consistent.

As to disability costs and cost of healthcare, check the stats:

Number of Veterans Receiving VA Disability Compensation (as of 12/31/07): 2.9 M
Number of Veterans Rated 100% Disabled (as of 12/31/07): 257,100
Number of Veterans Receiving VA Pension (as of 12/31/07): 321,859
Number of Spouses Receiving DIC (as of 12/31/07): 318,667
Number of Total Enrollees in VA Health Care System (FY 07): 7.8 M1
Number of Total Unique Patients Treated (FY 07): 5.5 M1
Number of Veterans Compensated for PTSD (as of 12/31/07): 308,402
Number of Veterans in Receipt of IU Benefits (as of 12/31/07): 239,156
Number of VA Education Beneficiaries (FY 07): 523,344

40,000 casualties in a pool of 7.8M people.  Even counting the entire 700,000 people that have served in Iraq is dwarfed by the number that have served in Korea or Germany or Japan or Vietnam and that is 700,000 over the last five years.  And of those 700,000 we have 40,000 casualties?  Even at 700,000 people, not all of them are injured and not all of them will receive or even be eligible for VA Healthcare.  We had the same number of troops before OIF as we do now, so in theory, we would have the same number of veterans regardless of whether we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan or not.  What you are arguing is that the healthcare costs for serving 10% (700,000 out of 7.8M) of the VA Population are marginally higher than the costs that would otherwise be associated with serving the same veterans because their health is significantly worse than it would be if they were not deployed.

Would you care to quantify the projected increase to the total VA budget of $90B total VA budget for FY2008 that would be attributed to this 10% of the total VA population?  Let’s say $9B for those service members, though I debate this as Vietnam vets have far more health problems do to agent orange and other issues.  But let’s project that out and say that these veterans will have health outcomes that are roughly on par with WWII, Korea, and Vietnam vets, though I also dispute this because of the significantly better field medical care that they received versus soldiers in the past.

Ya the last time there was a lot of real estate investment it created a bubble and they said housing created 80% of all new job growth, and homeowners used the equity in their new found wealth as an ATM machine. Wow, they bought cars, boats, vacations all kinds of fun stuff. Corporations had fun too, new stores, new corporate headquarters, advertising, hired a shit load of employees, revenues increased from the homeowners new ATM, stock values went up.....etc.

So ya I agree real estate does very little to stimulate the economy.

You overestimate the impact of housing on the country.  Didn’t the housing bubble burst almost two years ago in mid-2006?  Yet for the last two years, the economy has continued to create jobs at 100k per month despite slowed housing construction?

If you want to discuss the housing bubble’s effects and cause, the bubble was caused by a flood of new investment into housing due to low mortgage rates.  You have a situation where the appreciation expected on real estate was greater than the interest rates that mortgages were going for.  In essence, you can expect a rate of appreciation of 25% on a home that you can finance for 20% down (or later 0% down) and at a rate of 6% or less.  On top of that, the gains can be transferred tax free via 1031 exchanges into other properties later.  Further, there is no capital gains taxes on the first $500k every two years.

This caused leveraged buying and it was not the average joe that bought a house that caused the bubble, it was investors that saw the potential to earn 20% or more ROI on leveraged positions and not pay taxes that chose to invest in Real Estate instead of stocks.  The home building industry has not gone away, it has just taken a major hit because there is so much undeveloped land that home builders own and are leveraged on and they are dumping their inventory.

Home equity does not exist.  It is merely anticipation of a future capital gain to be made when the property is sold.  Investors bought property because they could leverage themselves because of low rates.  Banks lent money at low interest rates because the Fed injected liquidity to stimulate the economy.  Homeowners saw free money laying around and borrowed it.

And the S&P had record earnings growth but the market did not rise at the traditional rate of earning growth and trade at the expected PE ratio because stocks were disadvantaged because money was invested elsewhere.  In all these respects, the Dot.com boom was no different than the housing boom except for the fact that common folks could do leveraged buying in the housing market unlike in the stock market.  In the late 1990’s when housing prices would have been expected to rise rapidly, they didn’t because of higher interest rates and the fact that speculators were picking stocks not buying houses.  The Housing crash would have been worse if not for Bush making stocks reasonably attractive by lowering capital gains and dividend rates.

Most of these problems are not caused by lemmings investing, but rather by government interference in the markets.  This is done by either changing the monetary supply or messing with interest rates.  Raising taxes is almost always problematic because unless it is done across the board, it advantages or disadvantages one investment over another creating bubbles.  Lowering tax rates done evenly is never bad for markets because it makes investing more attractive and spurs investment in all sectors.

Hence why we need lower taxes and less government interference in the monetary supply.  There is a wonderful book called Capitalism and Freedom written by a Nobel Prize winning economist named Milton Friedman.  He takes to task the economic wisdom of Keynesian economics that are responsible for most of these bubbles and for the instability.

Feel free to try reading some economic philosophy.  It might help when confronted with an argument with someone that is educated, well read, and relies on facts not bullshit.

BTW, the estimates are no where near 80%.  At the height of the housing boom, the estimates were 40% in 2006.  And the boom did not start in 2003, it started in 2004-05.  It was about a two year boom, but that boom had no noticable impact on the trajectory of job growth that was almost straight line between 2003 and 2007.

Yes r108......SS surplus is imaginary

Wow Justin....stay away from Starbucks......

I was talkin about BS fiasco and Lehmans sale to Institutional Investors.

So is the war free?

You overestimate the impact of housing on the country.  Didn’t the housing bubble burst almost two years ago in mid-2006?  Yet for the last two years, the economy has continued to create jobs at 100k per month despite slowed housing construction?

A: the bubble didn’t burst in 2006, NAR and the MSM sucked nimrods, Like r108 into believing housing would recover.
B: developments take years of planning so they kept building.
Perhaps I should have said “housing related” I wasn’t talking about housing construction.

The rest is bla bla bla and comes down to what I said......the economy grew from housing and now is contracting because of housing and is unwinding.

less government interference in the monetary supply

But then we wouldn’t of had the growth if we didn’t have all that cheap money and credit now would we.

The fed inflates and deflates.
The bubble cycle has replaced the business cycle

“We have a dollar that’s adjusting and I am for a strong dollar.....
Our dollar doesn’t buy as many barrels of oil as it used to and so therefore it’s more expensive for the American people”..... Bush 3/12/08

......the economy grew from housing and now is contracting because of housing and is unwinding.

Yes, capital moves to where it is most productive, so it’s moving out of housing and going somewhere else.  Duh.  You really need that basic econ course, boy.

But then we wouldn’t of(have) had the growth if we didn’t have all that cheap money and credit now would we.

Once again, the govt cannot cause economic growth; it can only shift where it happens with fiscal and monetary policy.  Justin just schooled you on how it works, but you aren’t able to understand the truth of how the economy works.  Dumb Dumb Dumb.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Today’s Labor Department report on rising unemployment isn’t pretty.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely, and who rely on you in return.”
Senator John McCain, Faith of Our fathers

Today’s Labor Department report on rising unemployment isn’t pretty.

I have never thought of anything from the Labor Department as “pretty”, but no matter.  For instance, a very low unemployment rate means it’s hard for those who are unemployed to find jobs.
The great thing about economics that lefties don’t know is that the wealth moves around.  There is never a dead loss.  The value doesn’t decrease; it just moves from one place to another.  The govt tends to distort the situation to suit its political agenda, but even when there’s negative GDP growth(which hasn’t happened yet in this administration), the money simply goes into savings or investments that protect it from the down business cycle.
Remember, pp; we survived the Carter debacle, which was exponentially worse than anything that is happening today.  It’s all about negative propaganda to elect a Dem.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

r108

Yes, capital moves to where it is most productive, so it’s moving out of housing and going somewhere else.  Duh.

Somewhere else? Like.......where China? Dubai?

Justin just schooled you on how it works

??????

What did he say? It was all bla bla bla bla

It was not the investors that caused the bubble but rather the average Joe that bought a home which allowed that homeowner to move on up the real estate ladder and so on. 2nd homes and investment did play a roll but that was mostly contained to the condo & multi family market.
They lowered the qualifications for homeownership, no money down, 125% LTV, no doc...etc which made it possible for even more people to become homeowners and more to move up the property ladder giving them more equity money to tap into. Yes Justin homeowners tapped (borrowed) their home equity. That’s why CFC, WaMu and many other mortgage companies have cut their HELOC’s because of the decline in home values. Homeowners with $60k HELOC’s have been reduced and in some areas eliminated altogether.

All this time wall street firms were packaging these loans and selling them off with an investment grade stamp of approval. So now when we see Lehmans, BS, Goldmans and many others with 36 to 1 leveraging we know they are up shits creek coz it was marked to fantasy.

The securities that were marked to fantasy are now being marked to market. $232 billion in writedowns so far and GS and others say at least another $400 to go. But then again no one knows how low home values will go.
The securities that were rated investment grade are now falling apart. Prime and Alt-A tranches are defaulting along with the subprime and as home values continue to decline it puts even more pressure on their already crapolla value.

We will pull out of this, or coming recession, with a new bubble cycle. What that next bubble cycle will be is anyones guess.

Now I’m sure Justin can put some cool stats and percentages and a possible graph or two that dates back 50 years, but it comes down to, too much credit has created too much debt for consumers as well as corporations. Heck, to much debt for our gov too.

Are you still looking for that housing boom in California r108?

..the stock of Countrywide Financial (CFC) closed up 32.36%… for the day!!!

10/26/07 cfc($17.30) 4/4/08 cfc($5.87)

No doubt a result of both the evening out of the housing market financing and the anticipation of the upcoming housing boom in CA.

You sure are a smart cookie.

R108 shootin the bull

“We have a dollar that’s adjusting and I am for a strong dollar.....
Our dollar doesn’t buy as many barrels of oil as it used to and so therefore it’s more expensive for the American people”..... Bush 3/12/08

What did he say? It was all bla bla bla bla

I’m sure everything that is beyond your ability to understand sounds like that.  Sad.

We will pull out of this, or coming recession, with a new bubble cycle. What that next bubble cycle will be is anyones guess.

Your Marxist indoctrination is showing.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Now I’m sure Justin can put some cool stats and percentages and a possible graph or two that dates back 50 years, but it comes down to, too much credit has created too much debt for consumers as well as corporations. Heck, to much debt for our gov too.

No what I can do is tell you the only answer that offers any promise at fixing it is to lower the capital gains tax rate, the corporate tax rates, the dividends tax rates and the individual income tax rates.  This will inject money back into the folks that can afford a home’s pockets and invigorate the market.  It will spur economic growth.

The problems are created because of disparities between how different asset and investment classes are taxed.  They are made worse by the Fed continuing to bounce interest rates up and down.

What I do not hear from Mark are any answers, but that is not surprising, the Dem Party has none either.  Their answers are to lower taxes for low and middle income folks that already don’t pay taxes.  Raise windfall revenue taxes on oil companies.  Tax the rich.

The areas in Phoenix at least that are faring the worst during the real estate “crisis” are those furthest from the city that offer the most affordable housing.  Let’s assume that each week, you spend an extra $25 in gas for your commute by living in BFE plus spend an extra 30 min in your car each day so you can be upside down in a house in the far reaches.  These are the folks that have Subprime loans.  That are in Arms.  That can barely pay their bills as it is.  That should be living closer in in apts anyway, but bought a $150k starther home in BFE.  They have no incentive to stay there and bolt.

GAS PRICES play a larger and larger role.  If you take issue with the economy and the housing bubble, we need not debate on how much the economy was helped or hurt by home prices, just as it makes no sense to talk about how much Clinton’s “economic gains” were helped or hurt by the massive Dot.com speculative bubble.  I would like to hear how new regulation, raising taxes, taxing the rich, and playing class warfare is going to fix this.

Justin,

It will spur economic growth.

and also cause our deficit/debt to skyrocket.
Let’s hope whoever puts these tax cuts in place also makes large enough spending cuts to cover the loss in revenue. We have had deficit spending for the past 8 years and with the $145+ billion stimulus package, $29 billion bailout of Bear Stearns and many more bailouts associated with the housing bubble yet to come (see I didn’t even mention the wars) I think they will need all the revenues they can get just to keep the doors open. If you want tax cuts then cut spending also.

Your little skit on RE in Phoenix area has nothing to do with what is going on with Wall Street and the financial market.
Sub-prime, Alt-A and now Prime are defaulting.
You should check out the WaMu Alt-A mortgage pool for the past couple of months. The pool is known as WMALT 2007-0C1......not pretty
Marked to fantasy only works in an appreciating market, but we all know bubbles only last so long.
We have a derivatives meltdown, too much leverage and as the fed tries to fix it with bailouts and lower interest rates it is only adding leverage. Take a look at Lehman, GS, JP, Citi....etc.
Marked to fantasy must now be marked to market, the real value of those securities. Good thing they got ins......what? the insurers are bankrupt too? dang.......

Energy and commodity prices will continue to increase so long as Ben, Hank and the Bush team continue on their STRONG dollar approach with the economy.
Huge inflation coming from the Greenscam/Bernanke/Bush mess.

There is no magic wand to fix this mess, it is going to be a rough ride, but it’s not the end of the world.

“We have a dollar that’s adjusting and I am for a strong dollar.....
Our dollar doesn’t buy as many barrels of oil as it used to and so therefore it’s more expensive for the American people”..... Bush 3/12/08

Let’s hope whoever puts these tax cuts in place also makes large enough spending cuts to cover the loss in revenue.

They are tax rate cuts, doofus, and they don’t cause a loss in revenue; they actually increase revenues to the Treasury.  Facts.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

If you want tax cuts then cut spending also.

Fair enough.  But on the other hand, if the democrats want massive entitlement increases, socialized medicine, and to donate .07% of GDP to the developing world, be honest about the impact that will have on the budget deficit.

The traditional fix to a trade deficit is that the currency will automatically depreciate, making imports less attractive and exports more attractive.  It seems that the depreciating dollar is the exact remedy that economists believe will fix the trade deficit.  It is just painful for a country that is used to a strong dollar and buying everything from abroad.  I wonder what the elimination of NAFTA and elimination of free trade agreements pending will do to our EXPORTS?  Democrats want to protect American industry, but if we tell the world that we do not want free trade agreements, it certainly will make us look worse than our alleged “cowboy diplomacy” did. 

Energy and commodity prices will continue to increase so long as Ben, Hank and the Bush team continue on their STRONG dollar approach with the economy. Huge inflation coming from the Greenscam/Bernanke/Bush mess.

I have yet to see huge inflation.  Despite a weak dollar and high energy prices.  If inflation is the worry, how about looking at the impact that the minimum wage has on it.  Or the impact that not drilling in ANWR or the gulf of Mexico off of Florida has on energy supply and prices.  Or about the impact that the new CAFE rules and unions have on the price of durable items like Automobiles.  Look at the impact that shutting down Walmart will have on inflation when folks have to pay significantly more for their goods. 

I just wonder how someone that is concerned about the capital markets, inflation, trade and budget deficits, and unemployment actually can sit with a straight face and defend any of the Democrat populist policies in any of these areas as a solution.

If you want tax cuts then cut spending also.

Pure leftie bullshit, produced by a total ignorance of economics.  Tax rate cuts increase revenue collected, and so if you cut both tax rates and govt spending, especially on useless social engineering pyramid schemes that are really for the purpose of buying votes for lying leftie politicians, you could reduce the tax burden on all Americans even more.
Tax rate cuts are half the picture of fiscal responsibility, reducing govt spending is the other half.  Get it?

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Let’s hope whoever puts these tax cuts in place also makes large enough spending cuts to cover the loss in revenue.

Just out of curiosity, what is the mechanism by which that “loss of revenue” is to be measured?  If a proposal is made to cut the capital gains tax rate to 12.5% and index (finally!) for inflation, effective January 1, 2010, how are we to know, authoritatively, whether doing so will result in a net loss of revenue to the US Treasury or a net gain?  Who makes that determination and by what mechanism is it made one, two, three, five or even ten years in advance of the event?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat: I’m sure the resident economic ignoramus won’t be able to do the calculation, since he simply parrots leftie talking points.  However, what they do is called static analysis, combined with a total ignorance of the difference between cutting taxes and cutting tax rates(in reality, marginal tax rates), combined with the Marxist myth that it’s a “fixed pie"(if you “cut taxes”, that must mean the govt will have less money to spend), and you get the stupidity Mark just spewed.
The primal leftie fear is that they might have less taxpayer money to spend, and that their bloated budgets and programs will be eliminated.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Who is gonna tell the 40,000+ causalities that we will no longer be paying for their medical care anymore, or the pensions of military personnel. Doesn’t that fall under entitlements?

Short answer: No. It’s debt, real debt.

Something undoubtedly foreign to you.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

R108,

You and I understand your point about static budgetary analysis, certainly.  But it seems that every time someone mentions cutting tax rates to stimulate economic growth… growth that provides the additional jobs our economy needs each year… the standard tedious response from the Left is to yammer about lost government tax revenues. (Not that any of the liberal geniuses ever consider ways to reduce the need for government revenues via cuts in spending.  For liberals, there is always one excuse or another for spending other peoples’ money.)

I would just like one modestly knowledgeable individual to come forward and seriously defend the notion that cutting tax rates will invariably lead to reduced government revenues.  My point is simply that I don’t believe the tax and spend true believers on the left even know how to go about defending their most fervent economic credo.  Never mind whether or not they can get the right answer… liberals simply aren’t smart enough to do the problem in the first place.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

… liberals simply aren’t smart enough to do the problem in the first place.

Well...yes.  I think the source of this leftie economic ignorance is pretty basic.  Marxism essentially disbelieves the concept of economic growth.  Under the labor theory of value, the only way economic growth can take place is for the labor force to grow; in other words, through population growth.  Marx disavowed the real engine of economic growth, which is capital investment, so that to him, economic growth is imaginary, for the most part.  This explains all the bleating about “credit” and “debt” among today’s lefties: they think all of our economic growth is imaginary.  With the resultant belief in a “fixed pie”, then, we establish the belief that “the rich” are that way by stealing from the poor(essentially a religious belief among lefties), and that all our “growth” is simply credit expansion.  Therefore, the taxes we “owe” to the govt(which should own all the means of production, “for the common good”, is entitled to all of our money that it desires, and so the use of the term “tax cuts"(or even “tax rate cuts") is heresy, to put it mildly.  Why else would they refuse to recognize the increased revenue that inevitably comes from cutting marginal tax rates?  Their ideology trumps practicality, which is why leftie Hollywood keeps churning out antiwar movies that fail at the box office, btw.  It’s the ideology, stupid.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

R108,

I’m not disagreeing with your analysis per se, but one would think that even a devout leftist would comprehend the fact that historically the population of the US grows at approximately 2% per year.  And that doesn’t include the illegals.  So the question becomes, where are the jobs for an ever-increasing population going to come from?

One more pitiful example of the sheer stupidity of static analysis by those on the Left!  One more reason NOT to put a liberal Democrat in charge of anything to do with the country’s economy!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

So the question becomes, where are the jobs for an ever-increasing population going to come from?

They will come from redistributing the money the rich have stolen from the workers, of course!

I didn’t say it made sense, Bat; it’s just the way they think(feel).  It’s not logical, and it doesn’t stand up to even a minimal level of scrutiny, which is why lefties have to lie all the time.  It’s great for slogans, though.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

It’s not logical, and it doesn’t stand up to even a minimal level of scrutiny, which is why lefties have to lie all the time.

Which makes it all the more ironic when a dimwitted dolt like Susan Sarandon, playing a dimwitted dolt like Annie Savoy utters a line like, “This world was never made for those of us cursed with self-awareness.”

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.