Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Seth]

So subsidizing the oil and gas isn't enough you want to deregulate fucking up the planet even more....oh well done...

I don't agree with Obama's approach on a number of points but the major barrier to achieving anything was the flat out traitorous actions of the Repuglies.....which you flat out ignore.....why am I not surprised.

Actually, they were upholding the finest traditions of the Constitution by opposing the Marxist-In-Chief and his attempts to denigrate and destroy our way of life. If they had cooperated with the Obamanation, they would have been traitors too...and a good number of them actually are because they are closet Progressives who failed to do everything in their power to obstruct and frustrate Obama's plans for Marxist domination of the United States.

He's a pathological liar, a Marxist, a traitor and enemy of the Republic and we cannot be rid of him soon enough.

drew a sketch of you and your fellow travellers finest qualities did you Seth??
....you are a condensation of what makes the US a laughing stock.
We will exempt you from the knee jerk mandatory bit of repugly agitprop labelling what you don't like Marxist.

Beyond that you nailed a self portrait remarkably well. Some countries might be inclined to take the bulk of the Republican party in government out and charge them collectively with treason. Well deserved.

You might try, but then again we're the ones with the guns...lots and lots of guns. The liberal Marxist panty-waists are the ones who think guns are horrible "killing machines" and they recoil and faint at the very prospect of being around someone who is armed.

So, you want to give it a go, come get some. I've got my Level IV body armor and plenty of ammunition and I'm a wicked-accurate long-range marksman, so let's see who gets to write the history. Be sure to write your will before you come to the party.

[Gerald McGrew]

It is not nearly as undisputed that the stimulus was advisable. Keynesian economists generally are in that camp. There is another camp that suggests lowering tax rates and/or making the tax code simpler and more efficient, coupled with a reduction in barriers to entry to business and industry, reduction in costly regulation, and the like, would be better for job growth. Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics winner Vernon Smith (PH.D. - Harvard) (taught at Brown, Stanford and U-Mass - did research at Univ. of Arizona and founded an Economics department at Chapman University in 2011). Many economists are not in favor of stimulus like the Recovery Act. Another is Steven Horwitz. There are many others -- see the Austrian school of economics, Von Mises institute, Cato Institute, and others.

We can do the battle of experts all day (similar to evolution/creationism and global warming), but in the end it comes down to the data, which indicates that the stimulus created or saved up to 3 million jobs. The question then becomes, is that a good thing or a bad thing during a recession?

And, secondly, assuming we are going to have a recovery act, I would have spent it on different thing -- I would have focused on industrial and technological development -- industries -- I would have suggested building nuclear reactors by the boat load, and doubling the budget of NASA for 10 years (say add $20 billion a year to NASA's manned space program and get us back to the moon, build a base, and get going to Mars.

The reason I would prefer pouring money into the energy and space sectors is because it is a better use of funds than what much of the money was spent on. The space industry is great, because it calls upon very high level brains -- engineers, chemists, astronomers, astrophysicists, pilots, technicians, designers, and requires development of many sciences and industries -- materials, metals, fluids, fuels, coatings, computers, robotics -- not to mention support industries to feed, clothe and manage all the personnel, etc.

About how much money would you have liked to seen spent on this, and about how many jobs do you figure that would have created or saved?

So, initially, I don't agree with bailouts in principle. And, if we're going to do them, I prefer the stimulus dollars be spent differently than they were.

Bailouts and stimulus packages are not the same thing.

Thirdly, I didn't force Obama to make promises. He said his plan would reduce the deficit by 50% by the end of his first term. Nice goal. Whatever he did didn't work. Had he reduced the deficit at all, even 25%, rather than 50% as he promised, I would be more in favor of him. Similarly, he said that the Stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. It reached 10.3% and is down to 8.3%, but now the job market is sputtering again. These were goals he set for himself, and he did not meet them. I don't expect him to fix an economy overnight, but it has been about 3.8 years now, and we are in a long period of stagnation.

I agree. The political rhetoric did not match reality.

Fourth, I don't agree with bailing out General Motors, and I think he should have let them file Bankruptcy Reorganization. They would have come out the other end, leaner and more competitive. Instead, we paid many billions of dollars to prop up the system that drove them into bankruptcy in the first place and we're subsidizing the Chevy Volt to the tune of $49,000 per vehicle now. It's not green, and nobody wants it.

The problem was, had GM gone into bankruptcy without the backing of the federal gov't, they would have gone under and had their assets liquidated. IOW, there would no longer have been a "General Motors", thus worsening the recession and job losses.

What I would suggest to do with taxes now is to keep the rates about the same,

So you would maintain the Bush tax cuts? Why?

and close loopholes for the higher income brackets.

Which ones?

I would remove regulations on the coal and natural gas industries, and allow oil exploration in Alaska and off shore to a greater degree.

Which regulations?

I would want the President to figure a way to encourage nuclear research and nuclear plant development - if only to get regulatory barriers away.

Do you mean spending federal dollars?

We need industry back in the US. Right now, the only thing keeping our industries alive at all is the military. Once we lose industrial capability, it would be nearly impossible to get it back -- it is a complex web of suppliers and small, medium and large sized industrial companies all doing different things.

How? International companies aren't sending manufacturing overseas because of regulations or taxes here. They're doing it because of labor costs plus the fact that they're actually selling more of their products in foreign markets. If even 30% of their sales are in China, and Chinese labor costs are 30% of what they are here, it makes total sense for them to manufacture in China. They save on labor, shipping, etc. How does a POTUS change that?

Also, I would not have focused on Obamacare in my first year in office, and instead I would have focused on market driven reforms and economic recovery.

What "market driven reforms"?

[Coito ergo sum]

It is not nearly as undisputed that the stimulus was advisable. Keynesian economists generally are in that camp. There is another camp that suggests lowering tax rates and/or making the tax code simpler and more efficient, coupled with a reduction in barriers to entry to business and industry, reduction in costly regulation, and the like, would be better for job growth. Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics winner Vernon Smith (PH.D. - Harvard) (taught at Brown, Stanford and U-Mass - did research at Univ. of Arizona and founded an Economics department at Chapman University in 2011). Many economists are not in favor of stimulus like the Recovery Act. Another is Steven Horwitz. There are many others -- see the Austrian school of economics, Von Mises institute, Cato Institute, and others.

We can do the battle of experts all day (similar to evolution/creationism and global warming), but in the end it comes down to the data, which indicates that the stimulus created or saved up to 3 million jobs. The question then becomes, is that a good thing or a bad thing during a recession?

You're the one who brought up what "most" economists believe.

Yes, the data is what is important, and the "saved or created" statistic is essentially made up. It's vague and untestable. the claim is from a CBO report which did not count jobs created or saved. CBO Director Doug Elmendorfer stated it straight out -- the CBO used models to predict what the stimulus would do if $X was put into the economy. That was used to sell the stimulus. Then later, they reran the models and used the result to claim that the stimulus worked. However, no independent checking was done to see if, indeed, it actually worked. The results the CBO reports—like the job creation figures—are simply a function of the inputs it records, not real-world counts. Question posed to Emendorf: “If the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then that would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis, right?” Elmendorf’s response? “That’s right. That’s right.” http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/26/hecku ... n-estimate -- the CBO's report is predictive about what the Stimulus "should have" done, not what it actually did.

And, secondly, assuming we are going to have a recovery act, I would have spent it on different thing -- I would have focused on industrial and technological development -- industries -- I would have suggested building nuclear reactors by the boat load, and doubling the budget of NASA for 10 years (say add $20 billion a year to NASA's manned space program and get us back to the moon, build a base, and get going to Mars.

The reason I would prefer pouring money into the energy and space sectors is because it is a better use of funds than what much of the money was spent on. The space industry is great, because it calls upon very high level brains -- engineers, chemists, astronomers, astrophysicists, pilots, technicians, designers, and requires development of many sciences and industries -- materials, metals, fluids, fuels, coatings, computers, robotics -- not to mention support industries to feed, clothe and manage all the personnel, etc.

About how much money would you have liked to seen spent on this, and about how many jobs do you figure that would have created or saved?

Not sure. I'm against the stimulus to begin with. I said that IF WE HAVE TO HAVE ONE, I would spend it on areas like that, and gave you a couple of examples.

Your created/saved allegation is unsupported as to what the stimulus actually did -- well, unless you have authority besides bare allegation and the predictive CBO report -- you haven't linked to it, though. You've ASSUMED that the 3 million saved or created line is true. If you have seen some evidence of it, I'd love to see it too. I'll wait for you link or post.

So, initially, I don't agree with bailouts in principle. And, if we're going to do them, I prefer the stimulus dollars be spent differently than they were.

Bailouts and stimulus packages are not the same thing.

Yes, I used the wrong word there. I don't agree with stimulus in principle. I also don't agree with bailouts in principle.

Thirdly, I didn't force Obama to make promises. He said his plan would reduce the deficit by 50% by the end of his first term. Nice goal. Whatever he did didn't work. Had he reduced the deficit at all, even 25%, rather than 50% as he promised, I would be more in favor of him. Similarly, he said that the Stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. It reached 10.3% and is down to 8.3%, but now the job market is sputtering again. These were goals he set for himself, and he did not meet them. I don't expect him to fix an economy overnight, but it has been about 3.8 years now, and we are in a long period of stagnation.

I agree. The political rhetoric did not match reality.

And, I notice the oceans haven't really started to recede and the planet hasn't started to heal. Guantanamo is still open. We still have indefinite detentions and warrantless wiretaps. We still have Patriot Act, and Obama upped the ante and twice made military incursions into foreign countries without permission or provocation -- Pakistan of OBL and Yemen for the American citizen terrorist and his 16 year old son who were extrajudicially executed without arrest or trial. He went into Libya without Congressional approval and didn't comply with the War Powers Act.

He spearheaded the pointless, but expensive cash for clunkers, and bailed out GM when it shouldn't have been, in my opinion.

Fourth, I don't agree with bailing out General Motors, and I think he should have let them file Bankruptcy Reorganization. They would have come out the other end, leaner and more competitive. Instead, we paid many billions of dollars to prop up the system that drove them into bankruptcy in the first place and we're subsidizing the Chevy Volt to the tune of $49,000 per vehicle now. It's not green, and nobody wants it.

The problem was, had GM gone into bankruptcy without the backing of the federal gov't, they would have gone under and had their assets liquidated. IOW, there would no longer have been a "General Motors", thus worsening the recession and job losses.

No. They could have filed for reorganization and probably would have. What bankruptcy reorg would have allowed them to do, however, is break the costly labor contracts....among other things. That's what got bailed out. And, arguably, the government bailout of government motors did not work as well as it has been sold by the Democrats: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... n-edition/

What I would suggest to do with taxes now is to keep the rates about the same,

So you would maintain the Bush tax cuts? Why?

Because raising taxes during a recession is inadvisable, and raising taxes when the country is stagnating with high unemployment and 1.7% GDP growth teetering on another recession is equally inadvisable. As Obama said, the last think you want to do during a recession is raise taxes: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... aise_taxes I think that statement is equally applicable given the precarious state of the economy now, even though we are not technically in a "recession"by the measure of increasing or declining GDP.

and close loopholes for the higher income brackets.

Which ones?

One example might be to disallow higher income people from writing off the sale of property or an investment as "long term capital gains." Another would be to disallow things like "Variable prepaid forward contracts" which allow income to be classified as unrealized appreciation. What rich people do is take millions of dollars in stock and "lend" it to an investment banker, who pays them for the loaned stock. The money is gained by the rich guy, but is considered "unrealized appreciation" until the stock is eventually sold. Closing that loophole could raise 1/2 to 3/4 of a trillion dollars over 10 years.

There are more.

I would remove regulations on the coal and natural gas industries, and allow oil exploration in Alaska and off shore to a greater degree.

Which regulations?

President Obama himself said in January 2011, that “rules have gotten out of balance” and “have a chilling effect on growth and jobs.” He is right. His administration's new rules cost something close to $50 billion a year.

Examples: the EPA rule requiring Alaska ships to use a low sulfur fuel. The removal of the lead based paint opt out rule which now homes built prior to 1978 be renovated while supervised by an EPA representative (adopted in 2010). There are many many many new costly regulations: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/u ... -FINAL.pdf

I would want the President to figure a way to encourage nuclear research and nuclear plant development - if only to get regulatory barriers away.

Do you mean spending federal dollars?

No, preferably not. There are thousands of pages of regulations that could be reworked, and each new plant requires approvals -- I think that the system for regulating and building nuclear plants could be reviewed to figure a way to build more of them.

We need industry back in the US. Right now, the only thing keeping our industries alive at all is the military. Once we lose industrial capability, it would be nearly impossible to get it back -- it is a complex web of suppliers and small, medium and large sized industrial companies all doing different things.

How? International companies aren't sending manufacturing overseas because of regulations or taxes here.

That's just to true. Some are doing just that.

They're doing it because of labor costs plus the fact that they're actually selling more of their products in foreign markets. If even 30% of their sales are in China, and Chinese labor costs are 30% of what they are here, it makes total sense for them to manufacture in China. They save on labor, shipping, etc. How does a POTUS change that?

By doing some of the things I've already mentioned, and acting otherwise in a pro-business way. If you're suggesting Obama isn't up to the job, then maybe we need someone else in there to give it a shot.

Also, I would not have focused on Obamacare in my first year in office, and instead I would have focused on market driven reforms and economic recovery.

What "market driven reforms"?

Christ -- is this the first time you've thought about these things? You strike me as someone who hasn't examined the arguments against your position at all. Catastrophic policies -- Health Savings Accounts -- allow insurance companies to compete across state lines - consumer directed health plans - among other things.

[Seth]

The problem was, had GM gone into bankruptcy without the backing of the federal gov't, they would have gone under and had their assets liquidated. IOW, there would no longer have been a "General Motors", thus worsening the recession and job losses.

Actually, the bankruptcy reorganization most likely would have simply extinguished the debts and broken all the union contracts that were driving GM into the ground, leaving it a poorer, wiser, but economically viable asset for some entrepreneurial group (like the secured bond holders who were screwed by Obama) to reopen as a leaner, more efficient, non-union company.

And THAT is exactly why Obama bought it with our money...so he could preserve UNION JOBS and turn the company over to the UNIONS as a part of his Socialist agenda.

What he actually did was fuck most of the union workers whose pensions were part of the secured bondholder's assets that were stripped from them illegally and unconstitutionally by Obama.

[Gerald McGrew]

You're the one who brought up what "most" economists believe.

Yes, the data is what is important, and the "saved or created" statistic is essentially made up. It's vague and untestable. the claim is from a CBO report which did not count jobs created or saved. CBO Director Doug Elmendorfer stated it straight out -- the CBO used models to predict what the stimulus would do if $X was put into the economy. That was used to sell the stimulus. Then later, they reran the models and used the result to claim that the stimulus worked. However, no independent checking was done to see if, indeed, it actually worked. The results the CBO reports—like the job creation figures—are simply a function of the inputs it records, not real-world counts. Question posed to Emendorf: “If the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then that would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis, right?” Elmendorf’s response? “That’s right. That’s right.” http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/26/hecku ... n-estimate -- the CBO's report is predictive about what the Stimulus "should have" done, not what it actually did.

Ok, then let's play that game.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-2 ... -sham.html

"The standard Republican talking point is that it failed, meaning it didn’t reduce unemployment. Yet in a survey of leading economists conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, 92 percent agreed that the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate. On the harder question of whether the benefit exceeded the cost, more than half thought it did, one in three was uncertain, and fewer than one in six disagreed."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2 ... ulus_N.htm

"President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs — but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists. Unemployment would have hit 10.8% — higher than December's 10% rate — without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs."

Now I'm sure you can find economists who say it was all a waste of money, etc., but that's not the point. The point is, all the surveys of economists that I'm aware of indicate that a majority of them agree the stimulus worked. If you can find a survey where the same majority of economists advocate your approach instead (no stimulus, no bailouts, tax reform, deregulation = economic recovery), then I'm all ears.

Not sure. I'm against the stimulus to begin with. I said that IF WE HAVE TO HAVE ONE, I would spend it on areas like that, and gave you a couple of examples.

Your created/saved allegation is unsupported as to what the stimulus actually did -- well, unless you have authority besides bare allegation and the predictive CBO report -- you haven't linked to it, though. You've ASSUMED that the 3 million saved or created line is true. If you have seen some evidence of it, I'd love to see it too. I'll wait for you link or post.

So your proposal here (spend money on NASA programs) is too vague to be able to respond to.

No. They could have filed for reorganization and probably would have. What bankruptcy reorg would have allowed them to do, however, is break the costly labor contracts....among other things. That's what got bailed out. And, arguably, the government bailout of government motors did not work as well as it has been sold by the Democrats: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... n-edition/

They did go through bankruptcy and they did reorganize. Doing so with the backing of the federal gov't meant it went much faster and they were able to stay open during the process... http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/08/news/co ... /index.htm

"Other supporters of the bailouts, and even some critics of them, say that Romney deserves no credit for the turnaround, given that he opposed the federal bailout that kept the companies alive during the bankruptcy process. Without that $81 billion in funding, the companies would have been forced to go out of business and liquidate, according to those experts. "There was no way they could get financing," said Conway. "They were burning money so fast, with no end in site, that no one but the government was going to give them money.""

So your solution would have been to at best, allow GM to renege on retirement promises and break their union contracts, and at worst, let them die? How exactly would that have helped increase or save middle class incomes, and thereby demand?

Because raising taxes during a recession is inadvisable, and raising taxes when the country is stagnating with high unemployment and 1.7% GDP growth teetering on another recession is equally inadvisable. As Obama said, the last think you want to do during a recession is raise taxes: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... aise_taxes I think that statement is equally applicable given the precarious state of the economy now, even though we are not technically in a "recession"by the measure of increasing or declining GDP.

So what effect do you feel raising top marginal rates on millionaires and billionaires would have on the economy?

One example might be to disallow higher income people from writing off the sale of property or an investment as "long term capital gains." Another would be to disallow things like "Variable prepaid forward contracts" which allow income to be classified as unrealized appreciation. What rich people do is take millions of dollars in stock and "lend" it to an investment banker, who pays them for the loaned stock. The money is gained by the rich guy, but is considered "unrealized appreciation" until the stock is eventually sold. Closing that loophole could raise 1/2 to 3/4 of a trillion dollars over 10 years.

How is that different than raising taxes in this economy, which you just said above shouldn't be done?

Examples: the EPA rule requiring Alaska ships to use a low sulfur fuel. The removal of the lead based paint opt out rule which now homes built prior to 1978 be renovated while supervised by an EPA representative (adopted in 2010). There are many many many new costly regulations: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/u ... -FINAL.pdf

So to help spur the economy, you would have more sulfur in our air, and lead...well, everywhere?

No, preferably not. There are thousands of pages of regulations that could be reworked, and each new plant requires approvals -- I think that the system for regulating and building nuclear plants could be reviewed to figure a way to build more of them.

The problem is, it's not regulatory hurdles that stop private companies from building nuclear plants. It's the cost. That's why they're almost never built without federal subsidies. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_releas ... -0504.html

"WASHINGTON (February 23, 2011) – Since its inception more than 50 years ago, the U.S. nuclear power industry has been propped up by a generous array of government subsidies that have supported its development and operations. Despite that support, the industry is still not economically viable, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report, “Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” found that more than 30 subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to long-term waste storage. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced."

Without federal loans and other subsidies, nuclear power isn't worth doing.

By doing some of the things I've already mentioned, and acting otherwise in a pro-business way. If you're suggesting Obama isn't up to the job, then maybe we need someone else in there to give it a shot.

From what I've seen, nothing you've proposed will change the market conditions I described. Chinese labor will still be way cheaper, and China/Asia will still be a dramatically expanding market, which makes it sensible for companies to locate their production there.

Christ -- is this the first time you've thought about these things? You strike me as someone who hasn't examined the arguments against your position at all. Catastrophic policies -- Health Savings Accounts -- allow insurance companies to compete across state lines - consumer directed health plans - among other things.

LOL. No, I just like to see what specific ideas people have in mind. Yours seems to be essentially more W. Bush policies, deregulation, "free market" solutions, etc. Of course we know how those things worked.

[macdoc]

The missing equation in nuclear is the "level field"
Nuclear is over accountable and coal practically not accountable at all PLUS subsidized.

[Coito ergo sum]

Now I'm sure you can find economists who say it was all a waste of money, etc., but that's not the point. The point is, all the surveys of economists that I'm aware of indicate that a majority of them agree the stimulus worked. If you can find a survey where the same majority of economists advocate your approach instead (no stimulus, no bailouts, tax reform, deregulation = economic recovery), then I'm all ears.

You just got done saying that the "battle of the experts" wasn't relevant -- it was the data.

So, I said "o.k" -- and I posted the data that is used to bolster the nonsense 3 million "saved or created" figure. You've not posted anything to support that figure. To my understanding, the figure is generated from that CBO report I cited, and Elmendorf came right out and said that the figure is predictive modeling and not based on reality and does not confirm or refute the 3 million saved or created number.

If you have some evidence of that "saved or created" number, then post it. If not, just say you don't have it, but you trust the economists who say the stimulus worked. I could show you a list of 200 economists that say it didn't and that the stimulus was inadvisable. But, it doesn't matter. If I do that, you'll say that the "battle of the experts" doesn't matter. But, then you'll say it does matter when a survey of 50 economists say the stimulus worked.

Not sure. I'm against the stimulus to begin with. I said that IF WE HAVE TO HAVE ONE, I would spend it on areas like that, and gave you a couple of examples.

Your created/saved allegation is unsupported as to what the stimulus actually did -- well, unless you have authority besides bare allegation and the predictive CBO report -- you haven't linked to it, though. You've ASSUMED that the 3 million saved or created line is true. If you have seen some evidence of it, I'd love to see it too. I'll wait for you link or post.

So your proposal here (spend money on NASA programs) is too vague to be able to respond to.

It wasn't a proposal. I said I am against the Stimulus.

HOWEVER -- IF we have to spend stimulus I think it stands to reason that spending it on a heavy industry or high technology that involves researchers, designers, engineers, chemists, materialpersons, fuel technologies, plastics, robotic, computers, etc. is a better use of funds then million dollar guard rails around dry lakes, and turtle crossings in Florida, or boondoggle airports that service no passengers but bear the name of a powerful Senator....

No. They could have filed for reorganization and probably would have. What bankruptcy reorg would have allowed them to do, however, is break the costly labor contracts....among other things. That's what got bailed out. And, arguably, the government bailout of government motors did not work as well as it has been sold by the Democrats: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... n-edition/

They did go through bankruptcy and they did reorganize. Doing so with the backing of the federal gov't meant it went much faster and they were able to stay open during the process... http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/08/news/co ... /index.htm

And, they broke the normal bankruptcy laws, and retained UAW contracts handing a lot of control over to the union. It was a giveaway to the unions, and it ripped off the bondholders who had legitimate expectations that were thwarted when the law was given an end-around.

"Other supporters of the bailouts, and even some critics of them, say that Romney deserves no credit for the turnaround, given that he opposed the federal bailout that kept the companies alive during the bankruptcy process. Without that $81 billion in funding, the companies would have been forced to go out of business and liquidate, according to those experts. "There was no way they could get financing," said Conway. "They were burning money so fast, with no end in site, that no one but the government was going to give them money.""

So your solution would have been to at best, allow GM to renege on retirement promises and break their union contracts, and at worst, let them die? How exactly would that have helped increase or save middle class incomes, and thereby demand?

"Renege" is not an applicable term. Bankruptcy reorg provides protections and collective bargaining in these union contract situations.

Because raising taxes during a recession is inadvisable, and raising taxes when the country is stagnating with high unemployment and 1.7% GDP growth teetering on another recession is equally inadvisable. As Obama said, the last think you want to do during a recession is raise taxes: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... aise_taxes I think that statement is equally applicable given the precarious state of the economy now, even though we are not technically in a "recession"by the measure of increasing or declining GDP.

So what effect do you feel raising top marginal rates on millionaires and billionaires would have on the economy?

One, it's not just millionaires and billionaires whose tax rates will be raised. Get that straight. That's a red herring. If it were just "millionaires and billionaires" there would hardly be an argument over raising the rate from 35 to 39%. Moreover, those millionaires and billionaires use tax loopholes to get out of paying the marginal rate anyway. So, I'm not all that concerned about the rate when it comes to millionaires and billionaires, at least not until the tax code is streamlined to get rid of the loopholes, two of which I previously described.

The rate going up from 35 to 39% on the upper level of individual income tax rates would not have a huge impact on the economy. However, raising the capital gains tax from 15 to 23.9 and the tax on dividend income from 18 to 43% would have humongous impacts on the economy.

An important impact, though, is that higher tax rates can reduce tax revenues collected by causing an overall drop in income producing work done, and/or causing people to report less income.

The more important point is that an increase in effective tax rates won't do anything to help the economy recover.

I think the implication of your question is that you think that the raising top marginal tax rates won't do anything to the economy. If that's true, then why do you want to do it? If it's a social fairness experiment, then I'm not interested. I'm interested in the middle and lower class income earners making more money, having jobs, taking care of themselves and their families and having more opportunities. I don't need symbolic gestures where some billionaire pays an extra 4 or 5 percent. That doesn't make anyone any happier. and I really don't need an EMPTY symbolic gesture of raising a rate from 35 to 39%, but retaining loopholes which means the millionaires and billionaires still don't actually end up paying any more in taxes.

One example might be to disallow higher income people from writing off the sale of property or an investment as "long term capital gains." Another would be to disallow things like "Variable prepaid forward contracts" which allow income to be classified as unrealized appreciation. What rich people do is take millions of dollars in stock and "lend" it to an investment banker, who pays them for the loaned stock. The money is gained by the rich guy, but is considered "unrealized appreciation" until the stock is eventually sold. Closing that loophole could raise 1/2 to 3/4 of a trillion dollars over 10 years.

How is that different than raising taxes in this economy, which you just said above shouldn't be done?

Because it is a different kind of money being taxed. When a billionaire creates a fiction that he is "lending" stock to an investment banker and then he actually realizes profit on that transaction, but due to the form of the transaction he gets to wink-and-nod that it really isn't realized gain, even though he has the money and can spend it, I think that he should pay income tax on it. Raising the overall marginal rate applies not just to a few millionaires and billionaires but to small businesses across the board, who are NOT millionaires and billionaires and who bust their asses to earn a buck. Some of them are HIGHLY effected, as Subchapter S corporations, by a marginal tax rate of 39 rather than 35% -- some are working on a shoestring budget out here.

Examples: the EPA rule requiring Alaska ships to use a low sulfur fuel. The removal of the lead based paint opt out rule which now homes built prior to 1978 be renovated while supervised by an EPA representative (adopted in 2010). There are many many many new costly regulations: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/u ... -FINAL.pdf

So to help spur the economy, you would have more sulfur in our air, and lead...well, everywhere?

No, because these regulations aren't cleaning anything up that is actually a problem. That's the reality. The lead based paint thing is a big red herring. Nobody uses lead based paint in houses anymore, and if you live in a house that was built before 1978 that was painted with lead based paint, its' still not a problem unless someone eats the paint. And, all you have to do is repaint it.

No, preferably not. There are thousands of pages of regulations that could be reworked, and each new plant requires approvals -- I think that the system for regulating and building nuclear plants could be reviewed to figure a way to build more of them.

The problem is, it's not regulatory hurdles that stop private companies from building nuclear plants. It's the cost. That's why they're almost never built without federal subsidies. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_releas ... -0504.html

A lot of the cost comes from the regulations. They're almost never built without federal subsidies because the humongous companies that build them know that they can get federal subsidies. And, the federal government wants to give subsidies to built such plants, because then they attach regulatory strings.

By doing some of the things I've already mentioned, and acting otherwise in a pro-business way. If you're suggesting Obama isn't up to the job, then maybe we need someone else in there to give it a shot.

From what I've seen, nothing you've proposed will change the market conditions I described. Chinese labor will still be way cheaper, and China/Asia will still be a dramatically expanding market, which makes it sensible for companies to locate their production there.

Then ipso facto nothing Obama is doing will change that either. Sounds like time for a change and someone to try something new.

Christ -- is this the first time you've thought about these things? You strike me as someone who hasn't examined the arguments against your position at all. Catastrophic policies -- Health Savings Accounts -- allow insurance companies to compete across state lines - consumer directed health plans - among other things.

LOL. No, I just like to see what specific ideas people have in mind. Yours seems to be essentially more W. Bush policies, deregulation, "free market" solutions, etc. Of course we know how those things worked.[/quote]

Bush wasn't "deregulation," as his administration increased regulations, and he worked with Democrats for most of his administration. Remember, he barely vetoed anything in his first term and a half.

Hand waving what I've written as "Bush policies" is just a blatant misunderstanding of what I've written and what Bush was all about economically. Moreover, as bad as the end of the Bush term was, for most of it, unemployment was under 5% and the economy chugged along at a good pace. He recovered from the 2000 recession, and had about 6 years going pretty good. It was the housing bubble and the finance bubble that caused everything to go kablooey, and to blame that on the policies of only one of the parties is either partisan or blind to reality. Both parties are to blame for that, and the Democrats are not innocent bystanders.

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

I think I now have a better understanding of the sorts of economic policies you'd like to see from a POTUS. Thanks for explaining.

[Gerald McGrew]

*sigh*

I stated that "the data indicates the stimulus created/saved up to 3 million jobs". This remains true.

From the article I provided earlier (emphasis mine)...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2 ... 0_CV_N.htm

It's impossible to determine precisely how many jobs or how much growth the stimulus program caused. In a nearly $14 trillion economy, economists can't go employer to employer counting new hires. And there are too many moving parts to confidently link any single factor with individual hiring decisions. Roughly one-third of the stimulus, for example, came in the form of tax cuts, which are designed to boost demand for a wide array of products and eventually result in related hiring.

But to estimate the answers to such questions, economists rely on models based on historical relationships between various policies and real-world results. Earlier this month, Zandi and co-author Alan Blinder, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, released the most detailed assessment of the government's efforts to combat the so-called Great Recession. Neither economist is regarded as a partisan firebrand. Zandi, for example, backed John McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign and has advised members of both parties.

Their conclusion: The fiscal stimulus created 2.7 million jobs and added $460 billion to gross domestic product. Unemployment would be 11% today if the stimulus hadn't been passed and 16.5% if neither the fiscal stimulus nor the banks' rescue had been enacted, according to Zandi and Blinder. "It's pretty hard to deny that it had a measurable impact," Zandi said.

Now you and others may disagree with this data and how it was generated, but my point stands.

[Coito ergo sum]

*sigh*

I stated that "the data indicates the stimulus created/saved up to 3 million jobs". This remains true.

From the article I provided earlier (emphasis mine)...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2 ... 0_CV_N.htm

That article states right in it that it is based on predictive modeling, not data. And, there is only agreement among economists who agree on the basic Keynesian assumptions that underlie that predictive modeling. From the same article:

"I can't find in my analysis that the 2009 stimulus package had much effect at all," says economist John Taylor of Stanford University.... the Zandi-Blinder conclusions a[re] divorced from what is actually occurring in the economy and reflecting built-in assumptions about the impact of government spending.

[laklak]

Unemployment at 8.1% "officially" in August (never mind all the poor schmucks that have given up looking or who are cutting lawns part time). Unemployment at 7.7% in January 2009. So, after trillions of dollars of "stimulus" money, the gutting of private corporations by government apparatchiks, the highest annual deficit levels in the history of the world and two massive rounds of Wiemar Republic money printing ("quantitative easing" in Newspeak) Mr. Obama and his crack team of Teenage Mutant Ninja Keynesians have managed to increase the unemployment rate by 0.4%. Well done, mate! Bra-fucking-vo! Just THINK of how bad things would have been if He hadn't saved us from the Rapacious Running Dog Capitalists!

Now, in order to insure this sterling recovery continues, Mr. Bernanke has decided to print an additional 4 Billion (that's 4,000,000,000) bucks a month indefinitely. Well, until that recalcitrant economy decides to straighten up and fly right, that is. We need to do that, you see, in order to buy back the bonds they sold to the Chinese to finance the "recovery" in the first place. Much cheaper to buy them back with a debased, worthless currency, right? Look how well that's worked in Zimbabwe!

Remember, boys and girls: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength!

[Gerald McGrew]

Sheesh CES, but you just looooooove to quibble over semantics, don't you?

So now your beef is with the difference between a "model" and "data" (which assumes that no data goes into a model), and you're going all creationist on me ("Yeah, you showed that surveys of leading economists agree with you, but I can find a couple of individuals that disagree and therefore dismiss all of it")?

Well done.

[Tyrannical]

Sheesh CES, but you just looooooove to quibble over semantics, don't you?

So now your beef is with the difference between a "model" and "data" (which assumes that no data goes into a model), and you're going all creationist on me ("Yeah, you showed that surveys of leading economists agree with you, but I can find a couple of individuals that disagree and therefore dismiss all of it")?

Well done.

If you consider a model as an algorithm and data it's input, you can skew the results any old way based on your model.

[Gerald McGrew]

If you consider a model as an algorithm and data it's input, you can skew the results any old way based on your model.

Of course you can. That doesn't therefore mean that all modeling is biased or useless.

It's intellectually lazy to reject a model output simply because you don't like the result.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sheesh CES, but you just looooooove to quibble over semantics, don't you?

So now your beef is with the difference between a "model" and "data" (which assumes that no data goes into a model), and you're going all creationist on me ("Yeah, you showed that surveys of leading economists agree with you, but I can find a couple of individuals that disagree and therefore dismiss all of it")?

Well done.

No, it's not quibbling. They don't HAVE data. They have predictions - predictive modeling. They haven't counted the jobs created or saved and they either can't or don't know how. They are estimating what "should" have happened based on economic modeling. That' is not "data."

It's not just a couple individuals. There are hundreds of economists that don't cotton to the Stimulus.

And, I'm sick of this shit about it being a popularity contest. You say "most economists believe..." and then I point out that we don't know what "most" believe - we know what most OF A PARTICULAR SCHOOL OF THOUGHT believe, and that most of another school of though are not in agreement. You then pointed out that it's not a popularity contest, it's the data. So, when I demonstrate that you don't have any actual data, and you're just relying on predictive modeling based on assumption accepted by the same school of thought that thinks "stimulus" works in the first place, you call it quibbling.