TPS

That's the point dude. Most of you right wingers are so dogmatic on this, and he's saying it's much more complex than "tax increases are always bad." Ah, more proof that you really don't know what you're talking about.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-increases-bull-markets-110001080.html

The jets did that without a pass rusher and the best CB in football too.

Yep, we might be able to judge him a little better after we hear his philosophy and see who he hires as coordinators.

Martin is on purely as STs, but gets thrown in when injuries hit. If he doesn't make it, the WR they keep in his stead will have to be as good on ST. Dickerson is an interesting player, a hybrid TE with speed. I think Marrone will give him a good look. I won't be surprised if they pick an RB in the mid or late rounds.

First, I didn't say that they were (completely) funded by everyone else, I said that they raised taxes on workers (and cut benefits for retirees) at the same time they cut taxes on the rich. Between Reagan's increased defense spending and his tax cuts, the SS changes helped reduce his deficits somewhat toward the end of the 1980s (for example in 1988 the off-budget surplus was 0.7% and the primary deficit 3.8%, so the total deficit was 3.1%). That is the off-budget surplus has helped offset primary deficits ever since. Also, the 1980s SS changes included everything they are talking about now: tax increases, benefit cuts, and raising the eligibility age. Going forward, payroll taxes have become a larger share of the government's total revenues, especially after the Bush tax cuts (in fact, before the temp cut in SS taxes in 2010, payroll taxes were almost = income taxes in 2008 and 09). But during Reagan's term, income taxes as a share of gdp fell by about 0.8% and payroll taxes increased by about 0.5% (I say about, because it depends what years you use and I used a conservative average that excludes the recession years). Since about 1980 to 2007, payroll taxes as a share of total government revenues have increased by 5-6% and personal tax revenues have declined by about 2% (again, I take a rough average). So you want an explanation. Inequality does matter as I showed you in our discussion about cap gains revenues. You can't talk about income tax shares without looking at both income shares and tax rates. The huge shift in income to the top 20% (with 50% of income) means they are paying more INCOME taxes and the bottom 80% less because their share of income has decreased (as we all know from rush and romney, the bottom 47% don't pay income taxes). So how do I reconcile? The top 20% have more than half the income and personal income taxes have declined as a source of total government revenues. The government does not look at revenues as separate lock boxes; it's all one pot. In 2009, personal tax revenues were $915 bil and payroll tax revenues were $890 bil. out of the total $2.1 trillion in revenues. So, again, the facts (not theory) are that the off-budget surplus generated by payroll taxes offsets the primary budget deficit. We need to stop pretending that the two are separate and then we can have some real discussions about how much to allocate to various sources (defense, non-def discretionary, SS and Medicare) and how to generate the revenues to meet the estimated needs over time. For example, if we say we want government no greater than 20% of gdp, how much to allocate to each, then how to finance. The debates would be much more transparent. Time for a beer and lunch at your favorite place. Cheers. With all due respect, everything is partisan. There is no completely fair system; society as a whole decides what's fair. The current budget debates are all about who will pay a greater amount--the top 1% or everyone else? Everyone will contribute, but who will bear the most pain is the issue.Regarding SS funds, the temp cut in taxes and the recession have pushed revenues below expenditures. The end of the temp cut should put it close to breakeven. Want to throw my 2 cents in here because I totally agree, which doesn't seem to happen too often here!My dad spent the last year of his life on hospice surrounded by his loved ones. Hospitals and nursing homes suck (for the most part)! I told my wife that when I get to the point where I can't take care of myself, take me back to Hawaii and strap me to a surfboard then have someone tow me into a 20 foot wave. Kowabunga!

What theory? It's a fact. Taxes were cut on the rich and SS taxes were raised. You will have to be more specific on your data. What do you mean by top earners? 1%? 10% 20%? Simple answer will be rising inequality. less income at the bottom and more at the top.

Nice name calling. What part is wrong, and what numbers do you want me to find for you, again?

You don't get it. First, it's a government fund, they don't operate to make a profit. Second, despite everything politicians say, it's not designed to be solvent in perpetuity, it's designed to get workers to pay more taxes over time than what they get out of it, so that the elite don't have to pay a greater share. From 1983 (when the payroll taxes increased) to now, workers paid more taxes than what was paid out, creating the surplus. NOW, rather than pay on the accumulated IOUs, politicians are telling us that the future liabilities are so great that we need to raise taxes or cut benefits TODAY to make it solvent in the future. The same game that was played from 1983 to 2012. This is the real kick the can down the road issue. Taxes will be raised and benefits cut TODAY so as to generate a "surplus" that will "fund" SS until 2075, but the reality is those resources are needed to pay the IOUs that the government must start making good on TODAY.

Re, the first issue. At the same time taxes were cut on the top, Reagan raised taxes on everyone else--payroll taxes. Surely you are familiar with the Greenspan Commission? They raised taxes on SS on the basis that the fund would be insolvent in the 2000s. In reality it was to fund the tax cuts for the rich.

My impression is that he's an arrogant prick. He won't come to Buffalo, and that's fine.

I guess it depends whether you are insured or not. For every story of Canucks going elsewhere for treatment that takes too long to get or is not as good, there are multiple stories in the US about people who can't get care because they aren't insured or are bankrupted by it.I certainly don't want to get into the debate as I know it's been done here before, and I am not well-versed in all things healthcare. I do know that there is no system that meets everyone's needs, but there are systems that meet the basic needs for all at less cost.

I guess you start by asking why we spend twice as much as any other industrialized country. Re economists, not ones influenced by Minsky.

You most likely misunderstand the point. I understand that making changes today helps resolve today's deficit and tomorrow's deficit. What I'm railing against is the argument that the funds raised today can somehow be "saved" to make future payments. Simple question: Does a SS trust fund exist that can be used to fund SS for the next 20 years or not?

It is a fraud when working Americans are told that taxes need to be increased today to fix a problem in the future, while at the same time cutting taxes on the rich. It was complete bull ****. The issue IS today's deficit, not tomorrow's. Let's stop pretending that income taxes and payroll taxes are "separate." (of course, that also throws out the 47% pay no taxes BS too!). All taxes go to supporting current expenditures, therefore all government programs are pay-as-you-go programs. You can't pre-fund a program. We need to start by fixing the number one long term issue which is rising healthcare costs. Does anyone pay attention to what the ratings agencies say? They lost all credibility in 2008.

Right, so if you don't believe it's there, that it's just an IOU, then I trust that you agree with the implications:1. The increase in SS taxes under Reagan in the 1980s, which was argued for on the basis that there would be SS deficits in the 2000s, was essentially class warfare against the working class. He cut income taxes for the top and raised SS taxes on everyone else. 2. These same arguments being used again today are a complete fraud. That is, the argument that we need to raise taxes and cut benefits today, in order to fix deficits 20+ years from now is the same utter Bullshot. The reality is the government now has to come up with real $s to start paying off the obligations represented by T-bonds in the so-called trust fund. So they will cut SS and Medicare today in the name of funding it past 2035. It's all theater.

You'll have to remind me when I laughed about that...The point I've tried to make all along is that the Clinton rates generate more revenue for any given level of GDP (or unemployment) relative to the Bush rates. Nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise known as the full employment or structural deficit.

No, the changing demographics--the greater numbers of boomers retiring relative to the number entering the labor force for the first time. Now, about that other issue... You would agree that the SS surplus is made up of IOUs called t-bonds, yes? Like any government security, it represents the government's promise to pay on those obligations. Where will the funds come from to meet those obligations?

Yes, but it is an improvement, which is what I'm predicting. I'm not saying it's great, just better. When we do reach that point, the real growth determinants will be lower than the historical average because of the decline in the growth rate of the labor force.

I made my prediction earlier in this thread--growth will be slowed by the tax hikes in the first half, but will should be 2.5-3% in the second half. In normal conditions (meaning no huge debt over hang), the economy chugs along despite various tax rates and regulations.

Go back to all of the arguments GG and I had, which is where all of that was discussed ad nauseum. You won't find any discussion about tax rates there other than the cap gains rate--we were debating whether growth and income tax revenues were more important than the cap gains revenues. My comment in this thread was related to the fact that if we went over the fiscal cliff then we would go back to the same tax rates that we had during Clinton's term, when there were surpluses. That's what I said. So this argument gets caricatured by the right. That said, I stand by the fact that if all rates went back to the Clinton rates, as would've happened with the cliff, then going forward more revenues would be generated than with the current agreement, which kept all rates at the Bush rates except the top. REally, it's not that difficult, but you guys want to paint me into a corner. Fine.

Yes, higher rates generate more revenue than lower rates, just as the CBO estimates. Why do you think the CBO estimated higher revenues had we gone over the fiscal cliff? Because the rates would've gone back to the Clinton era rates. That would initially slow down growth, but as the economy recovered after that, more revenues would be generated under those higher rates. It's not real difficult stuff. If I were to put the factors in order: 1. growth 2. lower spending 3. tax rates 4. higher cap gains revenues (over and above what's taken in on average)

man, you need to improve your reading comprehension. I never said the rates caused the surplus, i said growth, and the Fed not constraining that growth, was the main cause. You make my point above. That said, for a given level of GDP, the tax rates under Clinton raise more revenue than the rates under Bush. YOU posted the CBO's new estimates. How much revenue are they forecasting from the increase in the top rate? GG, Al Gore caused the strong growth of course. It is sitting as an electronic credit on the Fed's balance sheet. It is not something physical that once created, can't be destroyed. The Fed has the power to destroy money as well as create money. Rising Inflation will mainly depend on the growth of the economy relative to unemployed resources. And what's this about a government conspiracy to lie about inflation again?

I'm glad you stated this, because it is the crux of the issue! I've got to take off for a bit myself, but this is the real discussion that won't be had in public by congress!

I'm glad that you at last understand that we won't see high inflation until the economy picks up. Btw, what's your definition of rampant? As for the "competition for g&s," with unemployment at close to 8% and most industries and foreign companies operating at below average capacity, more goods will be produced and we'll import more as the economy "kicks off." And guess what will happen to the deficit as more is produced and more people are hired? With growth, the deficit will come down to a more manageable level. Everything else is a long term issue (see below). As the economy picks up, those corps will start using their "tons of cash" to fund expansion. On the other hand, without increased demand for their goods, they'll continue to sit on that cash. As for kicking it down the road, SS is funded through 2035. Medicare is funded for about another 10 years. However, it IS the healthcare liabilities that generate the really big numbers that people use when forecasting out 25+ years. Bring the cost of healthcare in line with other industrialized countries, and 2/3 of the projected deficits go away.