Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread

[brvheart 1,752]

the main takeaway from that graph:clinton was a fucking boss

Or at least the internet was. Maybe even the republican congress.

[brvheart 1,752]

I seriously doubt the kind of cost increases businesses will see from the discussed tax changes would swing their decision.

Then you don't understand basic long-term economics at all. This is an irrefutable fact.

[hblask 1]

First, this is better than any plan that has a chance of being passed. I agree with most of it, but will make a couple comments:

10.) Lower corporate tax rates, and give tax breaks to companies who bring jobs back to the US

#10 First half, yes, second half..... what? I don't think companies should get tax breaks for any specific behaviors because that quickly leads to the type of patchwork corporate welfare we have and 10,000 page tax codes. It's best to have the lowest rate possible, applied equally to all companies. If that's what you meant, carry on, but that's not how I read it.

11.) Greatly restrict Lobbyist activities in Washington

The only way to do this is to starve the beast -- don't give them things to lobby about. When govt micromanages the economy, businesses have incentive to protect themselves, and that means lobbyists. They will protect themselves, one way or another. If we instead had simple, clear rules, the incentive to hire someone to bribe legislators is much lower.

[El Guapo 8]

My thought was, we drove these companies out because of costs, lets give them a benefit to bring them back in."Hopefully" they will stay here because of the overall tax savings.

[CaneBrain 95]

Then you don't understand basic long-term economics at all. This is an irrefutable fact.

I guess that's why all the businesses left the country when Clinton was President with his onerous tax rates and job-killing agenda.

[ahosang 0]

i've been talking about this for years now. the velocity of money is still at a snail's pace due to fear of counter-party risk.

What do you think will be the next manoeuvre?

[CaneBrain 95]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gros...-021622372.html"It has long been obvious to all observers -- to economists, to politicians, to anti-deficit groups, to the ratings agencies -- that closing fiscal gaps will require tax increases, or the closure of big tax loopholes, or significant tax reform that will raise significantly larger sums of tax revenue than the system does now. Today, taxes as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Marginal rates on income and investments are at historic lows. Corporate tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Perhaps taxes don't need to rise this year or next, but they do need to go up in the future.Otherwise, the math of deficit reduction simply doesn't work. And that's how the deficit reduction deals signed off on by Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush came about.Yet the action in Washington in the past year has all gone in the opposite direction. President Obama deserves some of the blame. Several months ago, he struck a deal with Congress to make the fiscal situation worse -- extending the Bush tax cuts for two more years and enacting a temporary cut in the payroll tax.But Congressional Republicans deserve much more of the blame. For this calamity was entirely man-made -- even intentional. The contemporary Republican Party is fixated on taxes. It possesses an iron-clad belief that the existing tax rates should never go up, that loopholes shouldn't be closed unless they're offset by other tax reductions, that the fact that hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than school teachers makes complete sense, that a reversion to the tax rates of the prosperous 1990's or 1980's would be unacceptable."Hey Brv, this guy doesn't understand long-term economics either! It's good to have company.

[ShakeZuma 585]

where does he say that changing tax rates don't have any effect on business decisions? was it in the part you didn't quote?

[CaneBrain 95]

where does he say that changing tax rates don't have any effect on business decisions? was it in the part you didn't quote?

He says what I say (see the last line). The tax rates being discussed are the same ones of the prosperous 80s and 90s. If they weren't too onerous then, why would they drive away business now? I never said they won't have any effect on any business decisions; I said the potential effects are being overblown as they always are by the 'taxes are evil' movement.

[brvheart 1,752]

I guess that's why all the businesses left the country when Clinton was President with his onerous tax rates and job-killing agenda.

You don't understand the phrase "long-term". If you think that Clinton had any effect on macro-business during his term, with his tax policies, then you need to brush up on "inelastic vs. elastic".When taxes are raised it WILL raise the market equilibrium. Prices WILL go up and number of jobs available WILL go down. There is no other long-term option, all else being equal.Even though this is true, it's not necessarily bad, and I personally think the entire tax code should be scrapped, and would be fine if taxes went up on certain individuals. I also think that you should only receive social security if your assets at retirement are less than 2 million bucks.

[ShakeZuma 585]

He says what I say (see the last line). The tax rates being discussed are the same ones of the prosperous 80s and 90s. If they weren't too onerous then, why would they drive away business now? I never said they won't have any effect on any business decisions; I said the potential effects are being overblown as they always are by the 'taxes are evil' movement.

huh? dude, this is exactly what you said:

I seriously doubt the kind of cost increases businesses will see from the discussed tax changes would swing their decision.

which is to say that tax increases won't affect business decisions, which is, well, it's silly. now if you wanted to say "I seriously doubt the kind of cost increases businesses will see from the discussed tax changes would swing their decision enough to cause any serious harm to the economy" or something similar, then that's an argument you can make. I mean I don't think anybody here would argue that ALL taxes and ALL tax increases should be avoided ALL the time, but when you imply that they don't have any effect on decisions, well, like I said, that's silly.

[CaneBrain 95]

huh? dude, this is exactly what you said:which is to say that tax increases won't affect business decisions, which is, well, it's silly. now if you wanted to say "I seriously doubt the kind of cost increases businesses will see from the discussed tax changes would swing their decision enough to cause any serious harm to the economy" or something similar, then that's an argument you can make. I mean I don't think anybody here would argue that ALL taxes and ALL tax increases should be avoided ALL the time, but when you imply that they don't have any effect on decisions, well, like I said, that's silly.

you're right. I meant significant effects not zero effect.let's just pretend my original point was: I refuse to believe the tax rates for our most recent prosperous times will swing enough business decisions to harm the economy especially in the context of our historically low current revenue stream.and I think while it is true that few if any people here would argue that all tax increases should be avoided all the time.....that seems to be the current default position of the Republican Party.

[ShakeZuma 585]

you're right.

BOOM. FUCK YEAH. I WIN EVERYTHING. HA HA HA I RULE HEADSHOT BITCHES

[CaneBrain 95]

BOOM. FUCK YEAH. I WIN EVERYTHING. HA HA HA I RULE HEADSHOT BITCHES

you couldn't even out-hillbilly napa.

[ShakeZuma 585]

[BaseJester 1]

It doesn't have anything specifically to do with the debt ceiling but the fact that the recent debt ceiling bullshit showed that there are elements in the US legislative branch that are willing to use the nuclear option and blow things up isn't going to help the markets that's for sure.

I don't think we were ever in any danger of defaulting nor do I think we were ever in any danger of addressing the deficit.

[hblask 1]

I guess that's why all the businesses left the country when Clinton was President with his onerous tax rates and job-killing agenda.

As I explained earlier, it is a long-term process. Also, Clinton was a pretty good president for businesses, one of the biggest supporters of free trade in a long time.

[hblask 1]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gros...-021622372.html"It has long been obvious to all observers -- to economists, to politicians, to anti-deficit groups, to the ratings agencies -- that closing fiscal gaps will require tax increases, or the closure of big tax loopholes, or significant tax reform that will raise significantly larger sums of tax revenue than the system does now. Today, taxes as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Marginal rates on income and investments are at historic lows. Corporate tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Perhaps taxes don't need to rise this year or next, but they do need to go up in the future.Otherwise, the math of deficit reduction simply doesn't work. And that's how the deficit reduction deals signed off on by Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush came about.Yet the action in Washington in the past year has all gone in the opposite direction. President Obama deserves some of the blame. Several months ago, he struck a deal with Congress to make the fiscal situation worse -- extending the Bush tax cuts for two more years and enacting a temporary cut in the payroll tax.But Congressional Republicans deserve much more of the blame. For this calamity was entirely man-made -- even intentional. The contemporary Republican Party is fixated on taxes. It possesses an iron-clad belief that the existing tax rates should never go up, that loopholes shouldn't be closed unless they're offset by other tax reductions, that the fact that hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than school teachers makes complete sense, that a reversion to the tax rates of the prosperous 1990's or 1980's would be unacceptable."Hey Brv, this guy doesn't understand long-term economics either! It's good to have company.

But tax rates have very little effect on revenue collected, so it still doesn't make sense. And mostly they are passed on to the poor, so I'm surprised the left is so interested in hurting the poor. Unless, of course, the cynical view that the left likes to keep people subservient to govt is true, but I've never really accepted that.Tax revenues are low right now because everyone has massive losses to write off against the gains, and the economy is sluggish. It's time to learn from history: tax receipts go up when the economy does well, and down when it does poorly. Tax policies that harm the economy are the exact *opposite* of what we should be doing.

[El Guapo 8]

Tax revenues are low right now because everyone has massive losses to write off against the gains

I have clients that will never pay capital gains tax again for the rest of their lives. (not my doing btw, I inherited those losses)

[CaneBrain 95]

I admire the Koch brothers audacity:http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/...n-in-wisconsin/Unreal.

[brvheart 1,752]

I'm going to go WAY WAY out on a limb here and say that a pamphlet distributed by one of the hundreds of entities owned by the Koch brothers probably wasn't written and edited in their kitchen.

[hblask 1]

I'm going to go WAY WAY out on a limb here and say that a pamphlet distributed by one of the hundreds of entities owned by the Koch brothers probably wasn't written and edited in their kitchen.

But.... but.... KOCH BROTHERS..... scary boogeyman.......The race card stopped working, the left needed a new code word to avoid thinking.

[mrdannyg 274]

Wow, that was pretty irrelevant stuff brv and hb. Nice deflection, I guess.

[CaneBrain 95]

Wow, that was pretty irrelevant stuff brv and hb. Nice deflection, I guess.

You're just not understanding that election fraud is no big deal. That's why you've never heard any complaints from the right about ACORN.Also, anything the left has ever not liked about the right falls under race-baiting or class warfare.And when over 60% of the country thinks that modest tax increases for the wealthy should be part of a comprehensive deficit reduction plan, insisting on them is "pandering to the lowest common denominator". We have a lot of "low" people.And the economic theory taught in the vast majority of college economics classes is complete horseshit. Including the only class I ever took at Wharton. I so want a refund.Hope that helps interpret Hblask and Brv's posts.

[hblask 1]

Wow, that was pretty irrelevant stuff brv and hb. Nice deflection, I guess.

I was (hopefully) pointing out the hypocrisy of the left on this issue. The Black Panthers voter intimidation thing is well known, but the left won't even look at that. I was also pointing out the stupidity of using the Koch meme for everything the left disagrees with as some giant boogeyman that is behind all the evil in the world. It's so retarded I feel embarrassed for people who have to resort to it.Having said that, yeah, voter fraud is bad, both sides go to great lengths to do it, and it is rarely (if ever) punished.But hey, if pick a target, freeze it, personalize it. It's easier than thinking.