Steve:

Ricky, is raising taxes in the midst of "The Great Recession" going to improve the economy

Steven you do know the US is out of recession don't you? Or hasn't Red State blog picked up on that yet?
If you want to complain about a jobless recovery and ask whether or not returning tax rates to Bush era would stimulate jobs, I think the answer is probably yes.
Certainly cutting them by Bush didn't spur employment. But even if they had no effect on the employment rate (and I suspect more fundamental issues are far more important, fundamental things like outsourced manufacturing and service jobs) having the funds to better balance the budget would be useful.

And I think you mistake me for an apologist for all things Democrat. I'm not, I'm interested in how facts and evidence when entered into an argument can help. You are so blinded by your partisan nature that you can't even deign to recognize a fact and have to spin ridiculously.
Example: You think its a big deal that the GM electric car hasn't been a hit, and that its failure to gain traction is somehow evidence that the bailout of the car companies failed? How does the failure in that one isolated part of their business it contradict these news items? (Here's a hint. Big companies often have product failures in their mix. McRib anyone?)

General Motors has reported its first full-year profit since 2004 of 4.7 billion dollars (3.4 billion euros). The top US carmaker's fourth-quarter… 24/02/2011
Car giant General Motors' quarterly profit has more than tripled beating expectations and spurred on by a recovery in the US market and improved sales across… 05/05/2011
source: http://www.euronews.net/tag/general-motors/

And I wouldn't count the electric car out just yet.... Leaf is coming too. and gas prices continue to rise....

The mantra of the Bush years was : Cut taxes and deregulate. The deregulation culminated in the financial sectors failure and the economic collapse and the twin disasters of the Gulf Oil Spill and the Massey Mines collapse... The tax cuts themselves contributed nothing to employment and helped generate enormous deficits.
The mantra of conservatives running for office right now is cut taxes and deregulate....and cut spending.
The third part is admirable. I agree with that. The second is just Bush redux.
The next election isn't about whining about Nancy Pelosi, or attempting to scapegoat her for every ill of government and congress ...Its a question of the electorates priorities, now. And when conservatives go after entitlements like Medicare its a problem for them.... (see upstate new York election)
By the way, Medicare could be fixed in a reasonable time period, if it was run the same way other national Medicare programs are run. Give the program managers the ability to negotiate prices for drugs and services the way other national programs do and the spending would be curbed. But congress (both parties) refuses to empower the program to do this. Refuses to let it be run efficiently. (Because they get so many campaign contributions from who?)

By the way Steve, ending the Bush tax cuts would lower the debt. A lower debt means that interest rates would be lower.
A larger debt would put pressure on interest rates...
Higher interest rates is a greater damper on business investment than marginally higher personal taxes.
A large contributor to the debt problem is of course the lagging economy. The low interest rates are vital to keeping the recovery going...
If the savings are only made on spending, the money taken out of the economy by reduced government spending would drag the economy back.
So in effect, the tax increases are more likely to have a positive effect then negative. Especially since some that we've discussed are on corporations that are investing most of their profits outside the US (See oil multinationals...)

I think its also important to look forward at the debt. The stimulus is over. All the bailouts are over. The only things that continue to contribute to the deficits that began with the inauguration of Bush are the tax cuts and the incremental spending programs. You know, military spending for wars fought on the country's credit cards.... A fiscal conservative would have realized that fighting two wars on the lowest taxation rate since 1940 was just wrong. But no one really complained then....

I tried to copy the chart on this link...can't But why not link on and look at what the effect of various componenets is on actual debt. Assuming no major changes to current policies

source: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2 ... cted-debt/

If the Bush-era tax cuts are renewed next year, that policy will by 2019 be the single largest contributor to the nation's public debt -- "the sum of annual budget deficits, minus annual surpluses" -- according to new analysis from the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

These tax breaks, combined with the cost of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will account for nearly half the public debt in 2019, measured as a percentage of economic output, the CBPP's analysis shows. Even the cost of the economic downturn, combined with the cost of the legislation passed to stem the damage, won't be as burdensome as the weight of the Bush-era tax cuts, the chart below suggests. See if you can find the debt associated with the Trouble Asset Relief Program and the rescue of Fannie and Freddie:

rickyp wrote:General Motors has reported its first full-year profit since 2004 of 4.7 billion dollars (3.4 billion euros). The top US carmaker's fourth-quarter… 24/02/2011

This is a little misleading ricky. Itis my understanding that a large portion of that profit comes from the sale of the parts manufacturing and the financing arms of GM.

Also, the Fed put $60B into GM. $4.7B is a drop in the bucket.

arch

This is a little misleading ricky. Itis my understanding that a large portion of that profit comes from the sale of the parts manufacturing and the financing arms of GM.

Sure.. I'm not arguing that there isn't some exageration of the repayment...
But the point is that both Chysler and GM survived, kept thousands employed where without government intervention they would have been unemployed, and the entire industrial base in the areas dominated by automobile manufacturing would have been depressed for at least a generation. And might never have recovered...
I don't doubt that if the companies continue on their current trajectory the loans will all be paid off. In the meantime, taxes are being paid, people are employed, and the economy was saved. As an investment by the govenrment it has paid off very well.

But Arch, you want to argue that point, which I'd already granted, but not correct Steve when he tries to claim that the Bush tax cuts had a positive effect on employment levels?
Steve, when Bush took office the unemployment rate wsa 4.2% it went UP after his tax cuts. To as high as 6.3% before dropping then climbing precititously as his policies of deregulation began to bear fruit. When he left office the rate was 7.2% and climbing as the economy was tanking.
And Steve, you want to use this evidence to argue that tax increases will hurt the economy?

There's nothing new in the recent republican policy initiatives EXCEPT cutting spending and the services that come with that spending. Its more of the Bush years....only with a diminished Medicare.
If Obama and the Dems don't make this a central election issue at the end of this year in taking on the tax rate for the wealthy ...I'd be very surprised. The New York House by-election has to have painted the picture for even the least courageous of the lot.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Itis my understanding that a large portion of that profit comes from the sale of the parts manufacturing and the financing arms of GM.

Well, parts sales are important to all car manufacturers (and increasing profits there would indicate that they are doing well against the generic competitors). And finance? What do GM finance do - car loans by any chance? On GM cars, perhaps? I don't know about the US market for car loans, but over here it's getting harder - most lots find the costs too high and most buyers can get a bank loan at a lower rate. So if the market is like ours, increasing profits from there is also a good sign.

Also, the Fed put $60B into GM. $4.7B is a drop in the bucket.

[/quote]Or just under an 8% yield. I bet the Fed is borrowing at a lower rate than 8% (nearer to 3%). When you invest in a business, you'd be a fool to expect to fully recoup your investment after a couple of years. That's for a new business, or an established one. Bailing out that might fail is likely to take even longer. But GM has started to turn around. It would have been devastating had it been allowed to fail.

rickyp wrote:Steve:

Ricky, is raising taxes in the midst of "The Great Recession" going to improve the economy

Steven you do know the US is out of recession don't you?

Richard, you are technically correct. I would invite, urge, beg, and implore the President to run on that. With inflation (factoring in those nasty things the government's official stats ignore because no one uses them--gasoline and food) on the rise, unemployment at 9%, the housing market stagnant at best, and government borrowing 40% of its budget, I pray Obama runs on the economy!!!

Certainly cutting them by Bush didn't spur employment.

Bunk. What was unemployment prior to the RE collapse and the banking disaster?

And I think you mistake me for an apologist for all things Democrat.

Just 99.5%

I'm not, I'm interested in how facts and evidence when entered into an argument can help.

False. When I've asked for facts to back up your assertions, you've steadfastly refused to supply them. Instead, you post your insipid opinions. For example:

By the way Steve, ending the Bush tax cuts would lower the debt. A lower debt means that interest rates would be lower.
A larger debt would put pressure on interest rates...

How much would raising taxes decrease the debt?

You don't know--because you don't know what the unintended consequences would be. It's not a straight line.

Furthermore, the debt is only ONE factor on interest rates. Another is QE2, which is rumored to be a preview of future attractions. The government will just keep printing money. That, eventually, has to lead to higher interest rates.

Meanwhile, Obama could cut spending. That would be easy and would decrease the debt, potentially far more than raising taxes would.

Example: You think its a big deal that the GM electric car hasn't been a hit, and that its failure to gain traction is somehow evidence that the bailout of the car companies failed?

Nope. The Volt is a bomb--and one that would not exist without government insistence. Different issue.

How does the failure in that one isolated part of their business it contradict these news items? (Here's a hint. Big companies often have product failures in their mix. McRib anyone?)

General Motors has reported its first full-year profit since 2004 of 4.7 billion dollars (3.4 billion euros). The top US carmaker's fourth-quarter… 24/02/2011
Car giant General Motors' quarterly profit has more than tripled beating expectations and spurred on by a recovery in the US market and improved sales across… 05/05/2011

I think we have to see what happens when the government has cut its ties. It's a bit tough to tell at the moment. For example, what about the rejoicing when GM repaid its loan? http://biggovernment.com/ngillespie/201 ... -it-didnt/ And, as I think I posted, Chrysler "paid its loan back" via trickery.

Let's see what giving the UAW so much of a stake in the company and dropkicking investors bears in the long run. GM and Chrysler are hardly out of the woods or even financially sound.
source: http://www.euronews.net/tag/general-motors/

And I wouldn't count the electric car out just yet.... Leaf is coming too. and gas prices continue to rise....

Leaf is here--and it isn't setting the world on fire, so to speak.

The mantra of the Bush years was : Cut taxes and deregulate.

Really simplistic. Bush spent a lot of money. He was no conservative, fiscally. Obama makes Bush look like a tightwad.

The deregulation culminated in the financial sectors failure and the economic collapse and the twin disasters of the Gulf Oil Spill and the Massey Mines collapse... The tax cuts themselves contributed nothing to employment and helped generate enormous deficits.

So, point to specific deregulation by Bush that led to either disaster. Don't link them in any way to Bush without some form of proof. That's either sloppy, dishonest--or, in your case, normal.

You pretend like 9/11 was not a major economic factor. You leave out the housing bubble. You ignore the banking collapse.

On unemployment, since words seem difficult for you, I'll provide a picture:



Again, I had many problems with Bush, but you cannot say tax cuts did "nothing" for unemployment without explaining the numbers.

The next election isn't about whining about Nancy Pelosi, or attempting to scapegoat her for every ill of government and congress ...Its a question of the electorates priorities, now. And when conservatives go after entitlements like Medicare its a problem for them.... (see upstate new York election)

We'll see. Again, if Democrats want to be honest, great. A campaign like "Maintaining the Status Quo" would be honest.

As usual, Richard, you've not let the facts confuse you. Good for you! Democrats want to do nothing to save Medicare. All they are proposing is raising taxes and putting a board in charge of determining appropriate care. Meanwhile, they're demagoguing Medicare, saying Republicans want to "end" it (Harry Reid) and making it sound like the program will change for current seniors, which they know is false.

Amazing. The candidate who promised "hope" and "change" is now running on "fear" and "status quo."

rickyp wrote:I tried to copy the chart on this link...can't But why not link on and look at what the effect of various componenets is on actual debt. Assuming no major changes to current policies

source: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2 ... cted-debt/

Great source. From their "about" section:

The Center is dedicated to improving government policies toward low- and middle-income Americans and ensuring that government has the resources to meet its responsibilities and address critical needs. The Center also helps other nonprofits, both in Washington, DC and across the country, participate more effectively in policy debates over budget priorities and reducing poverty and inequality.

Um, that may be a lot of things, but "non-partisan" is not one of them. That's liberal-socialism.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007. After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.[55] From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people became unemployed.[56] And, in January 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than 15 years.[57]

See Steve, the unemployment rate was never lower than the 4.2% in January BEFORE the tax cuts.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_p ... nistration



steve

You pretend like 9/11 was not a major economic factor. You leave out the housing bubble. You ignore the banking collapse.

9/11 had a negative impact. But it was a blip compared to the recession caused by the financial services collapse...
I'm glad you acknowledge that it dug an enormous hole for the world to try and climb out of....

But this discussion is about the 2012 budget.
I noticed that this weekend, Sarah Palin had a sign on her motorcycle of George Bush with the line "missed me yet".?
I wonder if running on the Bush record makes sense?
I guess it does if, like you, she is able to forget the self inflicted nature of the bank failure and "believe" something else created the economic crater.

steve

Let's see what giving the UAW so much of a stake in the company

This is a problem? How sound is the german automobile industry? Management and labour unions work very very closely in Germnay, and they seem to have coped extremelly well. In fact, the stability offered has been an enormous advantage.

rickyp wrote:

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007. After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.[55] From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people became unemployed.[56] And, in January 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than 15 years.[57]

See Steve, the unemployment rate was never lower than the 4.2% in January BEFORE the tax cuts.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_p ... nistration

Really--honestly, tell the truth: do you speak English?

There was this little thing called 9-11 that took just a bit out of the economy. Did you miss it? Can you not read? There's no shame in admitting illiteracy, so 'fess up.

And, it's not like the economy was ripping along before then--can you say "Dot-com bubble?"

Why do you pretend like tax rates are the ONLY factor with regard to employment?

9/11 had a negative impact. But it was a blip compared to the recession caused by the financial services collapse...

There is no end to your foolishness.

The Stock Market Crash of 2000-2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002.[13] The 9/11 terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers, killing almost 700 employees of Cantor-Fitzgerald, accelerated the stock market drop; the NYSE suspended trading for four sessions. When trading resumed, some of it was transacted in temporary new locations.

By failing to provide any context for the Bush tax cuts, you are trying to do what, exactly? Is $5T a "blip?"

Economies are a mix of productivity, value, work--and psychology. If people believe things are bad, it becomes a bit of a self-perpetuating situation. With the dot-com bubble, other issues, and 9-11, I don't think there's much doubt that something needed to be done.

Beyond that, even the most partisan hack cannot deny Democrats, in charge of all three branches of government, just EXTENDED the Bush cuts last Winter.

How is that Bush's fault? Seems to me like DEMOCRATS did it--because they did.

You are nearly as dishonest as the President.

But this discussion is about the 2012 budget.

Right. Here are some more inconvenient truths which you cannot avoid:

1. Democrats passed NO budget for 2011. Nothing. That was the first time in about 35 years that Congress failed in this duty.

2. Democrats have yet to support or propose a budget for 2012. The President did, technically, then modified it with some vague objectives. Democrats haven't voted for anything. Is that "leadership?" No budget for two years?

3. Obama has racked up more debt by far in two years than any President has ever. You can whine about the economy, but no one forced him to spend, spend, spend, and then spend some more.

I wonder if running on the Bush record makes sense?

Since Bush won't be on the ballot, I have a more relevant question: will Obama run on his record?

No. He will attack. It's the Chicago way.

rickyp wrote:steve

Let's see what giving the UAW so much of a stake in the company

This is a problem? How sound is the german automobile industry? Management and labour unions work very very closely in Germnay, and they seem to have coped extremelly well. In fact, the stability offered has been an enormous advantage.

Read the whole article--part of it pasted below:

To avoid a bankruptcy of Chrysler LLC at the end of the week, the Obama administration is trying to push through a deal that gives the automaker’s unions majority ownership - a deal that could blow up if the company’s lenders reject it.

The administration moved to put its labor allies in the driver’s seat a day after General Motors Corp. announced a restructuring plan that would give the government majority control of the auto goliath in exchange for wiping $27 billion of taxpayer loans off the books, while GM’s unions would get a 39 percent stake in the company.

The fate of Chrysler, a storied American company and global industrial giant, could be largely decided this week in response to what appears to be the government’s final offer. The future shape of GM, if government deadlines hold, will be decided within a month.

The Chrysler plan was panned by corporate and financial analysts as a bad deal that would not prevent the company from either going bankrupt or getting bailed out by taxpayers.

“Looks like unions win, bankers lose,” said Jack Welch, former chief executive of General Electric Co., whose widely followed management style made GE one of the most respected companies in the world when he ran it from 1981 to 2001.

What happened was that legitimate stakeholders were pushed aside in favor of unions. It would be one thing if the workers bought the company or converted shares. Instead, Obama basically forced through a deal that benefited his allies and shortchanged those who had invested in both Chrysler and GM.

Furthermore, we don't know what the long-term health is for either company. However, if Obama doesn't get reelected, I would not want to own stock in either.

She is not just a Congresswoman. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is the new head of the DNC. Watch this video and tell me she doesn't know how to distort the truth. And, again, where is the Democrats' solution/proposal?

The Democrats' plan is simple: ignore the issues and attack anyone who actually addresses them as "trying to kill grandma."

danivon wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:Itis my understanding that a large portion of that profit comes from the sale of the parts manufacturing and the financing arms of GM.

Well, parts sales are important to all car manufacturers (and increasing profits there would indicate that they are doing well against the generic competitors). And finance? What do GM finance do - car loans by any chance? On GM cars, perhaps? I don't know about the US market for car loans, but over here it's getting harder - most lots find the costs too high and most buyers can get a bank loan at a lower rate. So if the market is like ours, increasing profits from there is also a good sign.

Dan, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. The portion of GM profits are not from the sall of parts or financing but from the sale of the parts manufacturer and financing company, i.e. GM divesting themselves of those two aspects of the company. In otherwords they represent one off items and should not be taken as an indication of the company doing well.

steve

There was this little thing called 9-11 that took just a bit out of the economy

Streve, the fact remains that the unemployment rate was 4.2% when Bush took office and never reached that level again despite his tax cuts.

Since you seem to place great emphais on the economic hit that 9/11 caused (But provide evidence only by showing the stock market reaction, which went up again shortly after the news article you quote was wrtitten.,...) Do you also you acknowledge that the economic hole that Obama inhereited was the cause of the deficit woes and horrid economy you complain about ...

If the Bush tax cuts didn't positively affect the employment levels that he inherited (4.2%) and you want to offer the complication of the 9/11 attacks as explanation why are you so unwilling to understand that the recovery from the vastly worse economic crater of 08? Oh, I know.