Berkeley Off Christina Romer.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: They talk like it’s obvious that cutting taxes will somehow magically give us more revenue. I’m pretty sure we tried that and it didn’t work.

Actually it's worked everytime it's been tried, go and actually do your homework and I don't mean Wikipedia.

From 1980 to 1988 Federal Income tax revenues DOUBLED, yes DOUBLED. However, Congress continue to spend, spend, spend.

It's just like people who get a raise, then go out and buy a bigger house. You didn't improve your financial situation at all.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Rather than raise taxes and cut spending, I'd go for cut taxes and cut spending a LOT more. Same effect of getting the house in order, but also leaves money in the private sector where it can grow the economy.

Well, that sounds like a great plan to me. Thing I don't see is how. Back to what I said before about the three bits that make up 75% of the budget.

If we cut 15% out of everything in the budget but don't touch those items, we save 3.75%. Not saying that's not worth doing, but that's not even a dent in the deficit, let alone paying down the debt.

Now, you didn't say cut 15% out of everything except those programs. I get that. But practically speaking, it seems like no one will get elected if they run on a "Cut Social Security 15%" or "Cut military spending 15%" platform.

I think what we need is leadership. Someone needs to step up from one party or the other and say "hey, this won't be popular, but we need to do it" and get the other side to say "you're right, let's do it together". Then they put a plan together and present it to the people. "You're not going to like this, but we're cutting Social Security, Medicade, Medicare and the Military budget 15%. We're doing it because otherwise we'll never get our financial house in order. Anyone from either party tells you otherwise, they're lying to you to get your vote."

That's it in a nut shell. Democrats want us to believe we can have everything on the Government and it's all free. Republicans want us to believe we can cut taxes as much as we like and there is no downside. Thing is, neither is true.

I think with that I'm probably out. Politics- yeah. I like you guys. Can't see any advantage in pissing you all off.

If the government cuts spending now and we'll be in a dilly of a pickle. Governmental austerity is highly unlikely to lift a country out of a recession.

The problem is during our previous expansion in the Bush years we kept our spending spree going instead of running surpluses for use in the next recession. Now we are trying to emerge from that "next recession" without the necessary funds to do so.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: Rather than raise taxes and cut spending, I'd go for cut taxes and cut spending a LOT more. Same effect of getting the house in order, but also leaves money in the private sector where it can grow the economy.

Well, that sounds like a great plan to me. Thing I don't see is how. Back to what I said before about the three bits that make up 75% of the budget. If we cut 15% out of everything in the budget but don't touch those items, we save 3.75%. Not saying that's not worth doing, but that's not even a dent in the deficit, let alone paying down the debt. Now, you didn't say cut 15% out of everything except those programs. I get that. But practically speaking, it seems like no one will get elected if they run on a "Cut Social Security 15%" or "Cut military spending 15%" platform. I think what we need is leadership. Someone needs to step up from one party or the other and say "hey, this won't be popular, but we need to do it" and get the other side to say "you're right, let's do it together". Then they put a plan together and present it to the people. "You're not going to like this, but we're cutting Social Security, Medicade, Medicare and the Military budget 15%. We're doing it because otherwise we'll never get our financial house in order. Anyone from either party tells you otherwise, they're lying to you to get your vote." That's it in a nut shell. Democrats want us to believe we can have everything on the Government and it's all free. Republicans want us to believe we can cut taxes as much as we like and there is no downside. Thing is, neither is true. I think with that I'm probably out. Politics- yeah. I like you guys. Can't see any advantage in pissing you all off.

So what do we do, just give up......damn it man, someone has to take charge or the country is going under. Being nice to these fools has not worked so far and we have almost left it too long now, it's time to make a stand for what is right, not Dem or Rep, just right.

If we have to cut everything, then that's what we do, however your figure give us 25% unaccounted for, and that would make a big dent in the problem.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Democrats want us to believe we can have everything on the Government and it's all free. Republicans want us to believe we can cut taxes as much as we like and there is no downside. Thing is, neither is true.

I'll suggest your assessment is partially right and partially wrong.

There is a portion of the Democratic base that have no idea how the government provides benefits - and they don't care as long as they get what's coming to them.

There is a portion of the Democratic base that believes (seemingly) that the private sector is an immortal milk-cow - blind to the fact that milk-cows need food and sustenance to survive.

There is a huge portion of the Republican base that embraces a lower tax policy but few (if any) will advocate irresponsible tax reductions - they just demand a responsible application of the tax revenues they create.

Privatize SS and Medicare. Private industry could probably give better service and cut 25% of the costs at the same time. Nothing is as inefficient as a government bureaucracy. Cut all earmarks. Cut all the inefficiencies out of the military procurement process. Let the rest of the world handle some of the policing we seem to be responsible for. That would probably get you close to your 15%. None of this will ever happen, because the powers that be don't want to loose the power those items represent.

As far as Ms. Romer, the really scary part is she is going back to Berkley to teach the next generation of economists. You think they will have a clue. Economists don't rank any higher than weather men. I wish I had a job where I could be wrong 75% of the time and still keep my job.

Toyman01 wrote: Privatize SS and Medicare....

Now how the hell are you going to do that? Privatizing SS is of course easy, it is already done, it's called a 401K, so you are saying just cut of the current SS (good luck getting anyone to vote for that), but Medicare?

All the money in Medicare COMES from the government, the services are already privatized (you know, the ones that constantly have to be monitored to keep them form defrauding the system and getting to this "free" money). It's already as privatized as it can get. Or I guess you could just let seniors pay for private insurance out of there SS money... that will work out real well... you're trying to kill grandma aren't you?

Oh, and if it isn't clear already, economists already don't have a clue.

Toyman01 wrote: Economists don't rank any higher than weather men. I wish I had a job where I could be wrong 75% of the time and still keep my job.

A very good corollary, actually. Thing is, weather forecasters are almost always right- at least about tomorrow’s weather. The problem is that they create the impression they can do something they can’t. Just like politicians, they have to appeal to an audience. So, you want a seven day forecast? You got it. Never mind that I can’t accurately forecast the weather that far out. So they give us what we say we want, then we criticize them for not doing it well enough. But no one ever said what we want could be done.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/how-valid-are-tv-weather-forecasts/

Didn't I just say I was out of this? Damn, I'm an idot sometimes.

I'll chime in on taxes. Every time you raise taxes to a large degree, you take income away from someone. If that happens to individuals, they spend less on goods and services, and when you do it on businesses, they hire less people and do not grow. You lower taxes, they spend more and business prospers. When that happens, tax revenues increase for everyone. It's not rocket science here. Study history and you will see that every time it's tried, lower taxes stimulates the economy a lot more than a government spending free-for-all.

When you raise government income tax, the state and local governments take a huge hit in sales tax, resulting in having to cut teachers, police, etc. While raising taxes seems on the surface to be an easy way to raise money, it has to come from somewhere, and most of us can't run on a deficit. We cut our spending to make up for it. When we do, we cut tax revenues to our local economy.

For businesses, we have pretty much the highest income tax in the free world leveled on them. It is much easier to build products out of this country unlike in years past. With the new taxes coming, and massive health care bills around the corner, look for many businesses to relocate to more friendly environments. We've already had several countries approach us about establishing in their areas. And I know Ireland is also actively trying to entice large corporations there too with low tax rates.

As for Bush, it always amused me why the left hated him so much. He was by far the most liberal Republican in recent years. Yes both parties are to blame for the initial economic problems, but this administration has taken it to an entirely new level. I'm getting on up there in years, and I've never seen this kind of recklessness and screw you attitude than I have from Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress.

^Yeah and the thing that kills me most is corporate taxation, they just pass that along to us in the form of higher prices, so it's the consumers who pay the tax.

If the Fed's raised the Taxes on McDonalds tomorrow, you think the prices would remain the same?

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: Rather than raise taxes and cut spending, I'd go for cut taxes and cut spending a LOT more. Same effect of getting the house in order, but also leaves money in the private sector where it can grow the economy.

Well, that sounds like a great plan to me. Thing I don't see is how. Back to what I said before about the three bits that make up 75% of the budget. If we cut 15% out of everything in the budget but don't touch those items, we save 3.75%. Not saying that's not worth doing, but that's not even a dent in the deficit, let alone paying down the debt. Now, you didn't say cut 15% out of everything except those programs. I get that. But practically speaking, it seems like no one will get elected if they run on a "Cut Social Security 15%" or "Cut military spending 15%" platform. I think what we need is leadership. Someone needs to step up from one party or the other and say "hey, this won't be popular, but we need to do it" and get the other side to say "you're right, let's do it together". Then they put a plan together and present it to the people. "You're not going to like this, but we're cutting Social Security, Medicade, Medicare and the Military budget 15%. We're doing it because otherwise we'll never get our financial house in order. Anyone from either party tells you otherwise, they're lying to you to get your vote." That's it in a nut shell. Democrats want us to believe we can have everything on the Government and it's all free. Republicans want us to believe we can cut taxes as much as we like and there is no downside. Thing is, neither is true. I think with that I'm probably out. Politics- yeah. I like you guys. Can't see any advantage in pissing you all off.

Across the board. Nothing is sacred.

Step 1 of fixing Medicare/ SS is to let people leave the system. That lowers future liabilities. I have tens of thousands paid into it. If they let me walk away from that tomorrow, I would. Bam! Now they've got tens of thousands in money without a future obligation. Given the option, I'm quite sure tens of millions of folks would do the same. With what is left, ration it. When the AARP starts bitching, say "berkeley you - we've got a country to save. The 'Greatest Generation' should understand what that's all about."

Defense - We're getting our asses kicked by guys with AK47's and $500 black market RPG's because we're trying to fight with billion dollar technology. The primary reason is that we want war to be pretty. berkeley that. War ain't pretty. Predator drones make it easier to watch the news, but they don't win wars. If we don't want headlines about 10,000 dead at the invasion of whateverstan, then maybe we need to reconsider whether whateverstan is worth it. Sometimes it is. Not always though. Also - We don't need a full time military. Dump the full time military, but re institute the draft so that we have bodies when we need them. When EVERYONE starts bitching, say "berkeley you - we've got a country to save."

TARP, bailouts, etc. - "We're willing to let GM die so the US may live. Priorities fellas. berkeley you - we've got a country to save."

If we really framed every spending decision within the framework of understanding that it is bankrupting, and therefore leading to the eventual implosion of our country, then maybe we'd be a bit more frugal. But we don't. berkeley - maybe I'm just a pessimistic chicken little. But I don't think so. I've seen how exponents work.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Across the board. Nothing is sacred.

You run on one side and I'll run on the other. We'll get there, shake hands and say "this is how it's gonna be folks" and we'll get it done. Sounds good to me brother!

aircooled wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Privatize SS and Medicare....

Now how the hell are you going to do that? Privatizing SS is of course easy, it is already done, it's called a 401K, so you are saying just cut of the current SS (good luck getting anyone to vote for that), but Medicare? All the money in Medicare COMES from the government, the services are already privatized (you know, the ones that constantly have to be monitored to keep them form defrauding the system and getting to this "free" money). It's already as privatized as it can get. Or I guess you could just let seniors pay for private insurance out of there SS money... that will work out real well... you're trying to kill grandma aren't you? Oh, and if it isn't clear already, economists already don't have a clue.

All the money in medicare comes from you and me. Privatizing it would not much different than privatizing SS. As with SS you pay now to have later. Medicare could work the same way. You pay now to a company to use when you are old. Think of it as prepaying all the premiums for your retirement years. The transition would be painful for sure. There would be a generation that would get screwed in the process. Especially since congress has robbed all the money from both systems they could in times of surplus. I'll even volunteer to be one of the people to get out of the system and save y'all the cost of taking care of my cancer ridden body. Just let me keep my money and I'll take care of me cause I'm a big boy. What do you think people did before Medicare.

wow.. what a great piece of journalism.

Noone knew how big the rescission would be? Really? I mean really really?

You need to understand the 1st rule of engineering. "All models are wrong".. period end of story. They are only as good as their inputs, which most likely are wrong.

You mean we didn't know how the economy would react to the stimulus? Really? Come on, you're pulling my leg.

ugh. This is not news. It's common sense.

You think a conservative administration would have done different things? Probably. Would they have been better? Maybe, but my magic 8 ball says.. " All signs point to no"

One of the things my professor said in my college economics class that stuck with me (maybe the only thing?) is that there is no such thing as a Democrat economist. Once you have a basic understanding of how the economy works, you realize that the typical Dem agenda of tax and spend is contrary to a healthy economy. So beware of anyone trying to pass him or herself off as an "Economist" if they espouse a Democrat agenda. What they really are is quacks and charlatans.

1988RedT2 wrote: One of the things my professor said in my college economics class that stuck with me (maybe the only thing?) is that there is no such thing as a Democrat economist. Once you have a basic understanding of how the economy works, you realize that the typical Dem agenda of tax and spend is contrary to a healthy economy. So beware of anyone trying to pass him or herself off as an "Economist" if they espouse a Democrat agenda. What they really are is quacks and charlatans.

that is crap.

You could also say, beware economists who say they are conservatives, cause their agenda is to maximize their benefit and minimize yours.

true economics should be treated like separation of church and state, period. influence from either side is bad.

Toyman01 wrote: .....What do you think people did before Medicare.

Died earlier....

....as I said, "killing grandma".

I don't disagree with you, but that is what you are up against. Strangely, you system is similar to some of the concepts (although incomplete) of the Healthcare bill (make em' pay now, because you know they will be collecting from it later)

Actually, aircooled, they didn't die earlier. At least not because of Medicare. And the problem with your "make 'em pay now, because you know they will be collecting from it later" theory is that while, yes, they are taxing us now and making us pay now for zero benefits, they are also blowing that tax money on booze, ho's, sailboats, pages, etc., and not saving it for us to use later.

My friends went to DC for the rally last weekend. I have a pic from the event. I'm tempted to post it, but just picture the square thing solid people as far as the eye can see. My friend said somewhere between 1 and 2 million people, by his estimate, and he is very good at estimating. Think about that: there's between 1 and 2 million people who've had enough and are willing to drop everything at a moment's notice and travel to DC to have a protest rally. The news media said "thousands" showed up. Thousands of thousands, actually. And Google was directing people to the wrong monument. Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

In reply to aircooled:

True, but if they don't want to pay now for later I would let them die. As long as the government keeps treating the population like children, some of them will continue to act that way. Liberty should include the ability to kill yourself from your own stupid decisions. People need to know that the choice between the cellphone or big screen TV and insurance might just cost them their lives. Decisions have consequences and the politicians are buying votes by letting people get by without facing them. That's why we have Medicare and SS. It wasn't for the good of the people, it was to buy their votes with other peoples money.

Last I heard 47% of the population paid no federal income taxes. That's up from 38% just three years ago. When that number crosses 50% we will have problems. There will be no way to vote responsible people to office. Bread and circuses my friend.

Toyman01 wrote: Decisions have consequences and the politicians are buying votes by letting people get by without facing them.

umm.. They aren't letting us get away with everything. They're giving us exactly what we voted for...

In reply to ignorant:

In all fairness, all I know about you is that you are ignorant. My professor was a learned economist. Who should I believe?

1988RedT2 wrote: In reply to ignorant: In all fairness, all I know about you is that you are ignorant. My professor was a learned economist. Who should I believe?

you should believe all of your professors at face value.. ALL OF THEM..

Seriously, economics is a science. It is a study of action and reaction. That is all, no politics or religion should be involved, but much like the pharmacists that won't dispense birth control, we humans seem to screw it up.

Ask 4 economists a question and you'll get 5 answers.

TM1, yes, your numbers are frightening. Here's how it works: The 47% will vote for the "gimme" party. Ya'll can figure out who that is. The other 53% are split between the "gimme" party and the other party. That means the "gimme" party wins. The "gimme" party gives the 47% just enough to keep them wanting and keep them alive, no more, and certainly to escape avenue. The only thing in our (The People's) favor is that a large portion of the 47% are also too lazy to bother with voting. Working against us are people in the 53% sucked in by the brainwashing media to such an extent that they would support Albert Arnold Gore, Jr, then Edwards after that, and then Obama. I mean, come on, people, after you make a bad decision, THINK about how you got there and change that process so you DON'T SCREW IT UP AGAIN. Otherwise, we'll get another one right after The O (who was going to do lots of things, like post bills on teh w3bz, y0, so we could read them first, REMEMBER?) that is just as bad.

Contrary to popular folklore, it is not a definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. It is more of a definition of STUPIDITY.

ignorant wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: In reply to ignorant: In all fairness, all I know about you is that you are ignorant. My professor was a learned economist. Who should I believe?

you should believe all of your professors at face value.. ALL OF THEM.. Seriously, economics is a science. It is a study of action and reaction. That is all, no politics or religion should be involved, but much like the pharmacists that won't dispense birth control, we humans seem to screw it up.

Yes, I spent some time studying the science of economics on my way to a Bachelor's degree in Business Finance.

Unfortunately, virtually every politician that has ever held office has had ideas about influencing economies. In the quarter century or so since I was a student, I have made some observations regarding the political affiliation of those who aim to institute economic policies that most often run contrary to the science of sound economic policy.

The words of that professor ring true.

1988RedT2 wrote: science of sound economic policy.

define sound economic policy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economics ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh