TPS

Reminds me of a colleague who, while making his point, confidently states the statistics to back it, whether or not they are the correct numbers....

Despite what the World Bank suggests, there is NO single rule for all countries, as it depends on so many factors; like whether or not its debt is denominated in its own currency, for example (which is why comparing Greece and the US is stupid). One of the good things that AOC will help bring to light is the reality of how the US "funds" itself. Once people understand the mechanics of fiscal policy, then the question will change from "do we have enough money to fund it?" to "do we have the physical resource capacity to enact it?" Money is simply the unit of account used to exchange things, and the US government has a monopoly on its supply. The mechanics of fiscal policy are that the government spends first (out of its account at the Fed), then is required to sell bonds equivalent to the difference in spending minus taxes. That is a politically imposed constraint, not an economic one. As AOC said in the interview, no one ever asks how we fund wars. We simple appropriate the funds, and if it increases the deficit, then we sell more bonds as required. NOte, those bonds also create a safe, liquid asset desired by the financial sector. At this stage of the economic expansion, my answer to your question is different than what I would give if unemployment were higher. If unemployment were higher, than I'd say just do what trump did: he increased spending without "paying for it"; in fact, he reduced taxes! He increased spending and cut taxes at the same time. We didn't need to borrow those funds from somewhere, they were simply appropriated by a congressional act (the larger deficits associated with those policies require the Treasury sell more bonds).. That said, Since we are close to full employment, it is much more difficult to enact any spending plans without "funding" it by reducing current private sector claims (higher taxes), otherwise it will create inflationary pressures.

You must be talking about he 1986 reform, because the top rate was 50% under his original 1981 Act, which had to be re-done because of it also generated tax shelters. Personally, I think it would be much easier to push reforms that eliminate shelters rather than try to raise rates. I would also focus on the estate tax and its shelters. There is no general rule for a sustainable D/Y ratio.

Exactly. Just as they were fixated on him, so are they with her. "It's the media stupid." bannon made the suggestion when he was trump's chief of staff. I guess it makes sense that a proposal to raise taxes on millionaires has to come from someone on the right for the right to accept it...

It’s the liberals fault....

Ha ha, you don’t have to be a darling of the mainstream media to get your message broadcast—they helped trump get elected too. So it’s ok to suggest a tax hike on the rich if you’re the chief strategist of the president but not a new congressman. I get it now...

So you have B-man on ignore? bannon was Trump's chief advisor at the time. I'd prefer to read an analysis rather than accepting "they're almost always accurate on these matters"... Just as "the poor will always be with us," so too will the rich....

Yes, as I also acknowledged in that sentence. My point is that their offense is capable of taking a significant (Allen) leap (related to their season ppg average) in 2019 by Fixing the O-line and adding a few weapons.

I mistakenly thought the Jets game was after the bye week. I was counting that game, as you can see by my first sentence.

Just over 1% of all non-corporate businesses make over $1 million, and the number of overall personal tax filings above $10 million (2016) was just over 16,000. That suggests the number of business owners affected by a higher marginal tax rate above $10 million is pretty small--Finding out the number of those 16,000 taxpayers above $10 million who own a business is the important question, as they would be the only ones affected by AOC's suggestion. On a Related note, Steve Bannon suggested a millionaire's tax on income above $1 million (44% I think) which would've affected over 320,000 filers. I don't recall people going crazy about his proposal...?

Can you provide a little more detail on why the 90% marginal personal tax rate is only feasible under the conditions of the 1950s and 1960s? Not that i favor a personal tax rate that high, rather I'm interested to hear how a high top personal tax rate is dependent on the structure/dominance of the US economy? A high corporate tax rate can be a problem, but how exactly does the high personal rate depend on it?

He's a big dude, 6'3" and 225.

Thanks, I feel better now, sort of. I was starting to worry about your mental state, but now I see I'm the one slowing down....

That's what I was thinking. By letting it rip, he just might rip his rotator....

See Alf's response. But It's silly trying to compare deficits when one expands during a contracting economy and the other expands in a growing economy.

You're either kidding or "you're an idiot"...?

Let’s see what they do in free agency first.

While I'm okay with the outcome this year, I hope it's the last time in the next dozen years that we talk about how losing a game put us in better draft position....

I didn't think McD had it in him to get rid of both Castillo and Crossman. He proved me wrong.

They averaged almost 25 ppg after the bye, with Allen at QB in all but the first Jets game. Certainly doable. If they fix the O-line/running game, they can be a playoff team.

The markets are melting, and the Yield curve has flat-lined as the 10-year Treasury has come down 50 bp, suggesting a serious slowdown. Trump shot his wad with the tax cuts, but now the economy is about to go limp...Maybe it's time for another fiscal shot in the form of his infrastructure plan?

Yes, he was jilted for Love...

I was thinking about this just the other day. It’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Who was the O-line dude who was “up in smoke”?

I expect them to add a few OL in free agency, but I would also be happy if they landed one of the top 2 OTs at 9. The other alternative would be a pass-rusher, as they will need to find Jerry's successor.

You’ve been hammering this point since this site started, and you’re right. Currently they lack both talent and coaching, and I trust that will soon change given the firing.