TPS

Yep

I don't think you will find too many economists who would say that an increase to $15 over a short time period would be a wise thing. I think California is doing it right, incrementally increasing over the next 2 years from $8 to $10.

Why did you say this then?

you are too stupid to figure it out.

one more try...Suppose the US government spends $3 trillion annually and Finland's government spends $1 trillion annually, which one is bigger and more influential on its economy?

It's not called "Laborism." Capital makes the rules, because capital rules.

Ive already said that bigger deficits boost the economy. That can happen from tax cuts or spending increases. Yes to Q1.Yes to Q2, and yes to Q3. Which is precisely why you need to compare tax changes for similar levels of unemployment. You can only compare different tax regimes at similar stages of the economy! If you want to argue that lower tax rates caused faster growth, there were only 2 out of 8 years for bush where the growth rate was greater than the long run average. The average growth for bush over his 8 years was worse than any president sinCe ww2, though Obama is on track to break his record. The reason you use a % figure for the size of G is to account for population growth and inflation.

sorry, since I have been talking about supply side, I thought you'd be smart enough to figure out it meant supply side.Let me make this as simple as possible for you. Anything that increases the deficit is expansionary, all else constant (rising deficits in a recession appear to counter that to you, but you have to look at what's happening to private sector spending at the same time). This is standard Keynesian theory whether you like it or not. As you admit, revenues fall during the year cuts are made. Here's the math, hope you know some. Your income is $100,000, and your tax rate in 2003 was cut from 39.6 to 35%. That's a little over a 10% drop in your tax rate (I'll ignore the lower marginal rates to simplify more for you). Taxes paid on $100k: went from $39,600 to $35,000, a savings of $4,600. But your income went up by 5% to $105,000, so taxes paid at 35% are $36,750. Your taxes paid in nominal $s fell by $39,600-$36,750=$2,850. (Note, I'm even making this look better for your cause by not using 39% of the increased income of $105,000). Next year nominal income goes up by 6.5% due to the bigger deficit caused by the tax cut (and a housing bubble caused by the democrats as you would argue :-). Your income is now $111,825, and your taxes paid are 39,140, about $2,390 more than last year. Of course as income grows, absolute tax revenues go up. Only ideologues would use this argument to support their beliefs. Anyone else would simply point out that we are taking in less tax revenue as a % of income now, equivalent to the change in the tax rate. That is, rather than taking in taxes = 39.6% of income we are now taking in taxes = 35% of total income. If you don't understand this basic point, then you are an ideologue. If you don't understand that the only way to compare different tax structures is to compare them at similar %s of the workforce employed, then you are an ideological hack. I can't change that. Again, the best points of comparison for the impact on revenues from the bush tax cuts is to look at 2 years with equal rates of unemployment. The data are clear. If you want to be honest, you have to admit that lower rates will take in a lower % of revenues. You want to say I'm trying to confuse things with %s, but using %s makes any impact clearer. The difference between the % of revenues and expenditures taken in is equal to the deficit as a % of GDP. This takes away the bias that you and others try to use to support a failed policy belief--supply side economics. Now listen to me 3rd, accepting that lower tax rates take in less revenues in % terms doesn't invalidate your politics. I would like to have lower taxes, but if I don't want bigger deficits, then I have to lower spending as a % of GDP too. If you want to keep using that biased argument that focuses on absolute numbers, then continue with your hackery. As I've said, the real debate should focus on what size we want government to be as a % of GDP, then we can talk about how best to finance it with taxes. If you think the proper size is 15%, then we only need tax rates that will generate 15% (assuming full employment at 5%). Final point, nothing I've said has anything to do with regs or O-care, so start another thread if you want.

you are such a tool. If it's about your ideology, then there's a simple solution to make your view consistent with the % data:Step 1: admit that SS tax cuts are really Keynesian deficit-increasing expansion methods. Step 2: in order to fix higher deficits that go along with tax cuts, G spending will have to be reduced as well, which you support. If spending isn't cut, then you will have admit that you support the higher deficits that go along with your tax cuts. It's that simple.

catch up. Read the stuff after this post where I state the best way to compare policies, then see if your panties are still in a twist... just when it looked like you were getting things, you revert back to your ignorance. Look at the %s for revenues, expenditures, and deficits. What decade would you prefer for the US, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s?

it certainly can't be from your economic theories, you'd go broke..

I think the NSA hacked me. Of course you're an ass. That's the one thing that all of us at PPP can agree on.

how about South America, Pinochet for example? Oh, those were regimes put into place by the US. they don't count.

i used to think you were an a$$, but I've come to appreciate your style, which means I like you, I truly like you...

I'd say it's hard to qualify what Stalin was? He killed idealistic communism, and turned it into dictatorship communism. Socialism and democracy are not incompatible. Look at Europe. Socialism/Communism do not have monopolies on evil...

Thanks for the thoughtful questions rather than the low brow responses that have come to typify PPP (we're all guilty of lowering the level of discourse). I hope this clarifies, but I'd be happy to expand for you and the NSA...

I'm sure wacka and Tasker can point you to some reputable sources...

there are a lot of factors going on here, as always. I predicted at the beginning of this year that the economy would pick up in the second half after the tax increases and sequester cuts would slow things in the first half. The right wing nuts tried to derail things again in October. Despite that, the economy has gained some momentum. Based on my prediction I went 100% into equities this year, and I'm up 25%. In the past two weeks I got a little defensive and am now 40% equities, waiting for a little correction to jump back in again full speed ahead. I predicted a good year in stocks based on a finally improving economy and the fact that extreme inequality in the US means there is a huge pool of money desperately seeking high returns. The Fed's low interest rate policy fuels that as well. Now to answer your question. There will be an irrational reaction to the Fed backing off--the so-called tapering. I view this as an opportunity to jump back into the market 100%. While the end of historically low interest rates and Fed intervention will cause many to reverse some leveraged bets, the Fed's tapering will happen because of things that support stock prices (lower unemployment and a growing economy), and that irrational initial action will reverse, supporting stocks. This might be the correction in process now? Once you see the drop happen from the change in Fed policy, don't miss the rally that will go on after that, which will last at least another year. Regarding your last point. Monetary policy, low interest rates, mostly indirectly impacts the economy through changing asset prices. Unless the Fed gives money to you and me, it can't directly influence unemployment.

been out drinking with an old bills safety...First, sorry, that was meant as a response to OCretard. Now we're getting somewhere. It's clear revenues fell when tax rates decline, though it's based on simple math. If the % cut in taxes is greater than the % increase in income for a given year then revenues fall. It's quite possible that income will increase greater than than the tax cut %, but it didn't happen for bush during those 3 years. Once tax cuts stop, if income rises, of course revenues rise. It's math. As I agreed in another post, deficits are expansionary, so when Bush cut taxes and I creased spending, deficits soared after we had surpluses. Those deficits helped propel the economy. Again, that's standard Keynesian theory. go back and read my last post in that thread you idiot. faith, I'm happy someone finally understands that I am not a liberal spendthrift. However, my understanding of macro makes me argue for big deficits when we were in the worst crisis since the 1930s. Once we are truly on the road to recovery, then this so-called government of the people needs to be taken to the carpet. Idiots like OCretard don't get it. I think DC is right, he's so focused on himself and trying to show everyone how smart he is, that he totally misses anyone's point.

its obviously too complicated for you. Any Keynesian will tell you that deficits stimulate the economy, and deficits increase from either tax cuts, increased spending, or a combination of the two. No one has claimed that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy--it's Keynesian. What you idiots fail to believe, even though the data stares you in the face, is that tax revenues fall in the years when the cuts are made. When you stop cutting the rates and income goes up, revenues go up--duh! Again, the only way to compare different tax rate structures is by looking at what's known as the full employment or structural deficit. If you can't see that, than you are a blowhard. Re, your response 3rd shows just how disingenuous your are. Where did I state more regulation was the answer? The only way you can prove yourself right in any argument is to make **** up.

Look in the mirror dumbass.Who is cherry picking? Of course 9-11 caused a slowdown. Growth in 2001 and 2002 were both below trend. However, 2003 was at trend, yet revenues fell. Why? Did revenues pick up after 2003 once tax cuts ended, of course. If you stop cutting tax rates and the economy (income) grows, of course revenues rise. That's why the relevant way to measure any change in tax policy is to look at the ratio of taxes paid to GDP, anything else is hogwash. Further, the most accurate way to measure the impact is to compare the ratios at similar rates of unemployment--if there's a greater proportion of people working, you get a higher Tax/GDP ratio (which relates to your point about 2001). That's why, in the past, I've provided these numbers: for 1998 and 2007, the rate of unemployment was about 4.6%; the revenues generated as a % of GDP for those two years were 19.9% and 18.5% respectively. Conclusion 1: for the same relative proportion of the population working in each of those years, average taxes revenue collected as a % of GDP were lower by 1.4% due to the decrease in tax rates under Bush. There is no other way to spin this. This is why 99.9% of economists reject the supply-side argument that lower tax rates increase revenues. It's only stubborn, right-wing hacks who continue to cling to this religion... Conclusion 2: It's apparent that "Gatortard" knows more than 3rdtard....

You're still an idiot. I'm calling out Keep for cherry picking. Really? So when I filled out my 2003 tax forms in March of 2004 I wasn't paying my taxes for 2003?The tax cuts were phased in from 2001-03, and revenues dropped each year. You can't spin that away. All you can do is take 3rd's position and declare someone an idiot.

then focus on the years the tax cuts were made effective, 2001-03. Revenues fall every year. End of story.

no, you idiot.

Refuted? Hardly. Someone uses nominal revenues to support their case that revenues increased with Bush's tax cuts, and that's what counts as refuted? I guess that's acceptable here to support one's political bias. Any serious evaluation would look at revenues adjusted for inflation or as a % of GDP. It took six years for real revenues to recover from where they were when Clinton left in 2000, and revenues as a share of GDP never come close to the 2000 level. Using revenues as a % of GDP, Bush's best year for revenue generation was 2001, before he cut taxes. You guys make Goebbels look like an amateur...