TPS

In the first post you said corporate bond issuance; whereas in the quote here, you are saying fixed income funds inflows/outflows. Are you talking bonds issued by corps, or flows into fixed income funds by investors and others? If it's the latter, then that would include mortgages, which we all agree the Fed is manipulating. And that's a lot different than your first statement.

Yes, I really want you to tell me how lower oil prices lead to higher federal personal income tax revenues for a given level of unemployment in both cases. How did lower oil prices increase YOUR personal income taxes paid to the federal government? I'm willing to learn.If you can't argue using some numbers (data), then all arguments boil down to beliefs. I can't argue with your beliefs. I do agree with your point that the government will spend all revenue it takes in, so if you want it to shrink, then you need to starve it. That's a different point.

Dude, I simply point out that the Fed has "printed" trillions of dollars for 5 years now, and I ask you why haven't we seen the inflation that you've been squawking about? It's obvious that you have no clue on the cause of inflation or about how Fed policy influences the economy. Seriously, try and provide an explanation for why we haven't seen high inflation when the Fed has printed trillions of dollars, and tell me when it will happen and how? If you can't, then stop squawking about things you don't know.

The argument focuses on federal personal income taxes. Did the Bush tax cuts lead to a fall in federal personal tax revenues or not? conversely, did the higher rates under Clinton lead to an increase in federal personal tax revenues? I'm willing to listen and accept any rationally supported arguments. The problem is that most of the arguments made by those on the right tend to be vague and require a "belief" that something caused something else. I accept GG's argument that there was an increase in cap gains because the data show it. However, for the 2 best years, it added only $40 billion above the normal cap gains revenue. It helped push the budget into surplus territory, but it was income-based revenues that generated a bigger haul as unemployment came down. If you want to explain how the price of oil caused higher personal revenues, I'm all ears. However, under the government's data, excise taxes on gas fall under a different category. In addition, the tax nominal value of the tax doesn't change as the price changes--it's not a % tax, it's a fixed amount. Again, if you have an explanation that can be supported, I'm all ears. Finally, the argument about how taxes influence revenues is not mine. While supply-siders have tried to claim that lower tax rates lead to higher revenues, those who actually do the numbers in practice know better. The CBO estimates personal income tax revenues based on tax rates and wage and salary income (which they base on projected unemployment). When tax rates are increased, their estimate of revenues over time is increased; and when tax rates are cut, their estimates of revenues is decreased. This is based on the evidence (data) they have seen. Btw, I'm sure it's the huge oil bonus that you all get in Alaska....

I know this will be hard for you to understand, but here goes. As i argued with GG, economic growth and Greenspan's belief that the so-called "non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment" (NAIRU) had fallen (due to productivity growth) meant the Fed let the recovery continue (around 1997) as the unemployment rate fell below 6% (most economists thought this was the value of NAIRU, the rate that would cause inflationt to accelerate). The number one factor that generated more revenues was the fact that unemployment fell to 4% (GG argues cap gains revenues were more important). Now, how does this square with my comment on Clinton's tax structure? The tax structure influences what's known as the full employment budget deficit/surplus. That is, if the economy was at FE, it's the estimated (by the CBO) budget value. As I've done several times here, I've compared the budget deficit for Bush and Clinton during years when both regimes exerienced unemployment of about 4.5%. On the revenue side, Bush's tax cuts added somewhere between $100-150 billion to the deficit. So, yes, when the economy is at an equivalent state (same level of unemployment), the higher taxes under Clinton generate more revenues. Why do you think the CBO is estimating more revenues from the just announced tax increases? Are they biased? If you don't believe that tax increases will generate higher revenues over time, then I guess you also must believe that tax cuts don't cause deficits, but then you would have to come up with a story to explain the 1980s and 2000s. Ok, let your insults continue. There certainly won't be a serious response; that hasn't happened since the last time the Bills were in the playoffs.....

What he said.As I said earlier in this thread, there will be cuts to SS and Medicare, even though the primary cause of any future deficit projection is healthcare. Outside of the healthcare fix, I would support a tweaking to SS if the Rs are willing to cut defense spending (I'm talking the billion/trillion $ boondoggles).

The spending decisions will take place in a couple months, and that's when the Rs will have the upper hand. It's a silly exercise to compute the impact over the next 10 years without those changes added into the equation, and they will change.

I wouldn't be surprised if former players like Thurman, Tasker, and Brown--who were at the PC, helped influence Ralph's decision. No good coach wants to be told by an owner what to do, and Ralph had a history of meddling. I think they got Ralph to take one for the team, and he was wise enough to do so.

Corp bond issuance has averaged about $500 bil (seasonally adjusted annual rate per quarter) since the end of 2010. There's no doubt that the Fed's buying of mortgage securities and long term T-bonds has pushed institutioinal investors into riskier assets, but it's a chicken and egg thing. Successive rounds of QE are tried because of the ongoing GFC. Rates are at historic lows because of the crisis (and Fed policy if it makes you feel better) and corporate CEOs have taken advantage.

You obviously misunderstand the fiscal cliff. The point was to avoid the short term austerity measures because it would cause the fragile recovery to stumble back into recession. Politicians are using the FC to barter over who will pay for the long term fiscal fix.

You should've said Hungarian forints!Cheers to 2013 and the new regime!

Duh! Why do you think the Reps will strike a deal? Defense contractors will go ballistic, so to speak....It was a great bargaining tactic.

Payable in US$, sure (my bank will take to big of a fee for a $115 exchange...)Btw, I expect the 2nd half of the year to carry the day.

Household deleveraging is reaching a turning point. Firms and households have locked into low-cost debt increasing cash flows. But biggest factor is the cheap energy boom. Double impact: energy intensive firms are expanding in the US and the trade deficit will continue to shrink as we import less.

Your common sense response doesn't work for the sky is falling crowd. There will be a fiscal patch, and the economy will grow by 2.5-3% next year. Unemployment will fall and possibly dip below 7%, and the deficit will decline by $300 bil. next year. The 10-year t-bond will end the year between 2-2.5%.. Entering the 6th year of QE policies, 3rd and tasker will continue to squawk about the coming weimar inflation rather than try to understand why they are wrong. Happy New Year PPP!

You are giving Ben too much credit. He controls the short rate. Thank the recession and a huge pool of money looking for higher yields for historically low long rates. It's a no brainer for CFOs to take advantage of it.

And the price of hot air is cheap...My radio tells me that gas prices are at a yearly low; my newspaper says the drought and ethanol demand have caused food prices to increase; my right wing friends here at ppp tell me obamacare is increasing the cost of medical care, and that tuition is driven by over-paid tenured, liberal professors.... Merry Christmas M.

Interesting, Fitzpatrick said he really didn't want to be quarterback today too....

I lived in Hawaii for 6 years, he was also an honorable representative for the state. As I recall, the 442nd was the most decorated unit from the war.

I don't think they hold much sway at the federal level anymore. They get lip service. Their numbers are at an all-time low as a % of the workforce.

How can one not be cynical about a government that is more responsive to Wall Street, military contractors, big media, big pharma, corporate farms and food than its people? There are a handful of good people, but the rest are bought and paid for. They also are highly rewarded in their careers, and if their careers end short, they get jobs in those industries or on boards, and still end up with a better pension and healthcare than most Americans. Cynical, damn straight.

Yes, I'm choosing the typical PPP response. Aren't you being a bit melodramatic? Fight for all sides to reach a conclusion? He wasn't elected by the republicans. These are divisive economic issues between the parties. What does it mean to fight for the entire US? Is that what Romney would've done? What is the best economic policy for the entire US? Maintaining tax cuts for the rich? Maintaining the largest military budget in the world? Maybe the majority thinks he IS trying to do what's best for the majority of the country. Income continues to get more and more concentrated at the top, so, yeah, the folks at the bottom will vote for someone who will hopefully maintain the crumbs that they get. That's what the long term fight is about. If we want to maintain some minimum standard of life for the majority of people in this country into retirement, then, starting about 2020, more resources will be needed to meet those needs. That most likely will mean less funding for military and more taxes for the 20% who have 50% of the income. So, yes, my response that "the other guys do it too" was done to make the point that you're being hypocritical. I hope BO does play it political and makes the republicans take the fall. I hope he gets everything he asks for too, because the working class has been given the shaft for too long. Now, all this said, and pay attention here, I doubt it will happen. I will bet a pitcher of beer that BO will cut entitlements as part of a grand bargain. The good cop-bad cop routine is done to make us think that one party really tries to protect the majority.

Oh, and the republicans are different how?

So is this a criticism? Isn't that part of political negotiation? There is no reason for BO to cut a deal before the year is out, and, in fact, it will probably give him more clout to get an even better deal to his liking if he doesn't.

Since there is an article posted on TBD with that lead, it reminded me that it looked to me like there was a blatant hold on Carrington as he tried to turn back and hit Lynch. Anyone else see that? Not that it mattered much...