Languish.org

 :hmm:

Let em all lapse.

Extend them. Daddy needs more stuff to buy.

The feral rich could hack it.

The tax cuts should go, but I suppose it's not especially important.  Whether taxes are raised or lowered, the underlying problem is still going to be there.

I'm going with let them lapse.  I'm a bit surprised at Yi with this one.

It is interesting that the deficit hawks are the ones who are the most strident that the tax cuts be extended.  Then again, most deficit hawks seem to be in thrall to voodoo economics.

What are you surprised by Raz?

Which deficit hawks are you referring to Neil?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2012, 04:20:25 PM
Which deficit hawks are you referring to Neil?

Eric Cantor.  Tom McClintock.  Most Republican legislators.

Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2012, 04:43:55 PM
Eric Cantor.  Tom McClintock.  Most Republican legislators.

I don't know where you got the notion that these guys are deficit hawks.  They showed their true colors when Obama offered his debt reduction compromise.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2012, 04:47:43 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2012, 04:43:55 PM
Eric Cantor.  Tom McClintock.  Most Republican legislators.

I don't know where you got the notion that these guys are deficit hawks.  They showed their true colors when Obama offered his debt reduction compromise.

They certainly tried to wear deficit hawk clothing.  Are there any politicians who you would consider to be deficit hawks?

Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2012, 04:55:52 PM
They certainly tried to wear deficit hawk clothing.  Are there any politicians who you would consider to be deficit hawks?

Rand Paul has vowed to never vote for a budget that is not balanced.  :D  His pop seems pretty sincere about the deficit as well.

Mitch Daniels seems hawkish.  David Stockman is not a politico but has lambasted the Republican party for its addiction to tax reduction Keynsianism.  You can't get much more hawkish than that.

Short answer, not many.

Let's add Paul Ryan to the list.  And Simpson and Bowles while we're at it.

If they're in favour of the Bush tax cuts, they are not deficit hawks.

Guess I'm a deficit hawk. Who knew?

I favor a complete overhaul of our income tax system, so none of the options really fit for me.

Then again, my views on the tax system have no more chance to be put in place than my views on health care funding.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2012, 04:47:43 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2012, 04:43:55 PM
Eric Cantor.  Tom McClintock.  Most Republican legislators.

I don't know where you got the notion that these guys are deficit hawks.  They showed their true colors when Obama offered his debt reduction compromise.

What surprised me Yi, is that you are normally on the spending side of the issue.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2012, 05:04:12 PM
Let's add Paul Ryan to the list.  And Simpson and Bowles while we're at it.

Are anyone of those people for removing the Bush Tax cuts?  If not, then they don't count as deficit hawks by your own poll?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2012, 05:51:26 PM
What surprised me Yi, is that you are normally on the spending side of the issue.

No clue what you're talking about.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2012, 06:03:57 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2012, 05:51:26 PM
What surprised me Yi, is that you are normally on the spending side of the issue.

No clue what you're talking about.

Think he means that you favor balancing the budget via spending cuts, or at least that that was his perception of your position.

Quote from: dps on July 07, 2012, 06:12:02 PM
Think he means that you favor balancing the budget via spending cuts, or at least that that was his perception of your position.

That's a reasonable interpretation, but it doesn't put Raz in a very good light.  I've been hammering on raising taxes since day one.

Is this another upcoming congressional crisis, that in my ignorance I haven't been reading about ? 

Or is it a more generalised, should the US do a Thelma and Louise type ending ?   :P

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2012, 06:16:08 PM

Quote from: dps on July 07, 2012, 06:12:02 PM
Think he means that you favor balancing the budget via spending cuts, or at least that that was his perception of your position.

That's a reasonable interpretation, but it doesn't put Raz in a very good light.  I've been hammering on raising taxes since day one.

You had a hard on for the Ryan Plan for a long time, that had quite a few new tax cuts and didn't remove the Bush Tax cuts.

Ryan's budget concept on relying solely on spending reduction with no additional revenue streams is its biggest fault line.  Punching Medicare in the face is at least a method of addressing it, even if it's not the most appealing, but damn, that fucker is dead set against increasing or creating any form of revenue generation, and that's simply not going to get it done.

Debt ratio is overrated anyway.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2012, 06:44:28 PM
You had a hard on for the Ryan Plan for a long time, that had quite a few new tax cuts and didn't remove the Bush Tax cuts.

If by have a hard on for you mean I called the lame-ass Democratic talking points about the Ryan plan lame-ass, then yes, I had a hard on and still do.  That doesn't mean I thought I think spending cuts only are the optimal path to fiscal sustainability.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 07, 2012, 06:51:11 PM
Ryan's budget concept on relying solely on spending reduction with no additional revenue streams is its biggest fault line.  Punching Medicare in the face is at least a method of addressing it, even if it's not the most appealing, but damn, that fucker is dead set against increasing or creating any form of revenue generation, and that's simply not going to get it done.

And that's why most Republican deficit hawks aren't, and are usually libertarian wierdos.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2012, 04:59:44 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2012, 04:55:52 PM
They certainly tried to wear deficit hawk clothing.  Are there any politicians who you would consider to be deficit hawks?

Rand Paul has vowed to never vote for a budget that is not balanced.  :D  His pop seems pretty sincere about the deficit as well.

Mitch Daniels seems hawkish.  David Stockman is not a politico but has lambasted the Republican party for its addiction to tax reduction Keynsianism.  You can't get much more hawkish than that.

Short answer, not many.

Don't forget Justin Amash.

I voted for letting them expire, though only in hopeless optimism.

If I actually believed the money would be wisely allocated, and serious efforts made to reduce deficit spending and debt reduction, that optimism would be less hopeless.

But...it's pretty much hopeless.

Quote from: mongers on July 07, 2012, 06:36:29 PM
Is this another upcoming congressional crisis, that in my ignorance I haven't been reading about ? 

Depends who you ask.  Some pundits are wailing about the effect the triple whammy of expiring Bush tax cuts, expiring Obama payroll tax cut, and sequester from the debt limit compromise will have on the economy starting January 1st.  In particular that bald dude on CNN (Allie Something) was wailing and ranting as if the front office had directed him to fill the void left by Lou Dobbs.

I must say I'm very pleased with the poll results.  Good on ya Languish. :cheers:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2012, 06:51:34 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2012, 06:44:28 PM
You had a hard on for the Ryan Plan for a long time, that had quite a few new tax cuts and didn't remove the Bush Tax cuts.

If by have a hard on for you mean I called the lame-ass Democratic talking points about the Ryan plan lame-ass, then yes, I had a hard on and still do.  That doesn't mean I thought I think spending cuts only are the optimal path to fiscal sustainability.

No, by hard on you kept posting shit about it.

Quote from: Scipio on July 07, 2012, 07:38:09 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2012, 04:59:44 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2012, 04:55:52 PM
They certainly tried to wear deficit hawk clothing.  Are there any politicians who you would consider to be deficit hawks?

Rand Paul has vowed to never vote for a budget that is not balanced.  :D  His pop seems pretty sincere about the deficit as well.

Mitch Daniels seems hawkish.  David Stockman is not a politico but has lambasted the Republican party for its addiction to tax reduction Keynsianism.  You can't get much more hawkish than that.

Short answer, not many.

Don't forget Justin Amash.

Is he for removing the Bush Tax cuts?

I wonder how many of the people who voted to extend the tax cuts are actually Keynesians and how many are just crazytown bananapants libertarians.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2012, 02:17:43 AM
No, by hard on you kept posting shit about it.

By that definition you and Seedy both have a hard on for it as well.  :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2012, 12:25:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2012, 02:17:43 AM
No, by hard on you kept posting shit about it.

By that definition you and Seedy both have a hard on for it as well.  :lol:

We were responding to you!  Still what were those Democratic talking points you were valiantly fighting?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2012, 12:59:50 PM
We were responding to you!  Still what were those Democratic talking points you were valiantly fighting?

And I was responding to a claim that the GOP hadn't put forth a plan to reduce the deficit.  Usually from you, Seedy, or Guller IIRC.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2012, 01:53:56 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2012, 12:59:50 PM
We were responding to you!  Still what were those Democratic talking points you were valiantly fighting?

And I was responding to a claim that the GOP hadn't put forth a plan to reduce the deficit.  Usually from you, Seedy, or Guller IIRC.

Not me, Chops;  I know what the GOP did to put forth a plan to reduce the deficit:  The Ryan Budget.  Duh.
And Mittens took the easy way out by endorsing it, so he didn't have to offer anything in the way of a campaign plan.  Shame he can't get Ryan to do other campaign issues for him.

I voted to let the tax cuts lapse. Though I'd like to see a caveat in there for the Pres and Congress to make some budget cuts or reforms to go along with that. At some point both parties are going to have to make some reforms and changes anyway, they all know it.

Wrong.

Wait, is outlawing the GOP a reform?  Ok nm.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 08, 2012, 06:48:18 PM
Wrong.

Wait, is outlawing the GOP a reform?  Ok nm.

How would getting all those Democrats killed help anything?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2012, 01:53:56 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2012, 12:59:50 PM
We were responding to you!  Still what were those Democratic talking points you were valiantly fighting?

And I was responding to a claim that the GOP hadn't put forth a plan to reduce the deficit.  Usually from you, Seedy, or Guller IIRC.

You forgot JR who said that the Ryan plan was "New Math".  Archives don't go back much further, but it wasn't a a serious plan.  Most of the cuts were back dated to about 7-8 years ago.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2012, 12:12:30 AM
You forgot JR who said that the Ryan plan was "New Math".  Archives don't go back much further, but it wasn't a a serious plan.  Most of the cuts were back dated to about 7-8 years ago.

And this is why you thought I was "on the spending side of the issue?"

Now it all makes sense.

I thought you were on the spending side of the issue, because most of the bitching was about spending.  Very little was said by "Deficit hawks" about increasing revenue.  The description of people in you poll as "deficit hawks" and those you name as deficit hawks is inconsistent.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2012, 03:58:48 AM
I thought you were on the spending side of the issue, because most of the bitching was about spending.  Very little was said by "Deficit hawks" about increasing revenue.  The description of people in you poll as "deficit hawks" and those you name as deficit hawks don't correlate well.

"Because most of the bitching was about spending?"  That's a delightfully ambiguous phrase.  Bitching by whom?

Perhaps you were confused by the tag deficit hawk in I poll Raz.  A deficit hawk is someone who cares strongly about reducing the deficit.  There are two ways to do that: reduce spending and increase revenue. 

Yeah, that is a bit confusing as only one option is labeled deficit hawk yet all could could conceivably be deficit hawks.  Do you see how that could be confusing?

Spending has been the focus of the Republican efforts to reduce the deficit.  Haven't seen much in the way of talk of increasing taxes from that camp.  IN fact most of the GOP Congressmen and Senators swore not to increase taxes.  Most of our more conservative posters focused on that.  I remember Berkut ranting about "SPENDSPENDSPENDSPEND", and either DPS or Derspeiss (I get them confused sometimes), pointing out that you could balance the budget with just spending cuts.  I don't recall what you were doing exactly besides touting the Ryan plan (and apparently valiantly fighting the Democrat talking points that I didn't know about).

No, I don't see how extending the tax cuts could concievably be hawkish.

Well, if you don't remember, you don't remember.  And now that I've refreshed your memory by telling you I've been arguing for letting the tax cuts lapse since 2010, you can choose to believe me or not.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2012, 04:12:41 AM
There are two ways to do that: reduce spending and increase revenue.

That's really just one way, not two.  Unfortunately, not everybody sees that.

wut?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2012, 07:05:47 AM
wut?

You wrote there's two ways to do it;  I say, you can't have one without the other.  Need 'em both.  Which makes them one, like a Reese's Cup of Economic Love.

I'm still working through my first cup of coffee and cigarette.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2012, 04:31:03 AM
No, I don't see how extending the tax cuts could concievably be hawkish.

Well, if you don't remember, you don't remember.  And now that I've refreshed your memory by telling you I've been arguing for letting the tax cuts lapse since 2010, you can choose to believe me or not.

You could cut all spending.  Then extending the tax cuts would be part of the hawkish program.  Not realistic, but we already discussed the Ryan plan so I was thinking that fantasy was on the table.

Too soon to tell.  If Europe's largely resolved their crisis and China's okay then I think you should let them expire, if not extend them.

QuoteBy NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Natalie Cucchiara

*** Battling over the Bush tax cuts (again): The last time we left you on this topic was back in late 2010, when President Obama agreed to temporarily extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all income groups -- including the wealthy -- which he had campaigned against in '08. That move disappointed his base, but it also won him GOP concessions (on payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance), and it paved the way to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and approve the New START treaty. But the president vowed not to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy at the end of 2012, when he would have more leverage (because it would be after his re-election bid). "When they expire in two years, I will fight to end them," he said at a Dec. 7, 2010 press conference. And today, Obama makes his first chess move in this new tax-cut battle: At a White House press conference at 11:50 am ET, the president will call for a one-year extension of the tax cuts for ONLY those making less than $250,000. House Republicans, the New York Times notes, plan a vote later this month to extend the tax cuts for ALL income groups.

** Obama's opportunity and challenge: For Obama, today's move allows him to change the subject after Friday's weak jobs report. Perhaps more importantly, it enables him to draw a contrast with the Republicans and Mitt Romney, who just yesterday was raising money from wealthy folks in the Hamptons and who had spent his July 4 vacation at his New Hampshire lake house. But this is also dangerous ground for the president. We've been down this road before, and Obama has already caved once. The reason: Unlike Republicans, Democrats aren't unified on this issue. Some of them want the threshold to be $1 million; others are open to extending them TEMPORARILY for the wealthy. This time around, Obama has much more leverage -- with the expiration coming after the election -- but he still faces the situation where not all Democrats are unified. Here's what we're watching for today: Does he draw a line in the sand that he would VETO any legislation that extends all of the tax cuts? He's said before he opposes extending them for those making more than $250,000. He said in 2008 and in 2010 and yet he extended ALL of them in 2010. But what does he say this time?

*** Have the Bush tax cuts worked? Here's an entirely different question: Have these tax cuts worked? Have they promoted economic growth? Have they created lots of jobs? The Bush-era tax cuts have been in existence for 11 years now. During that time period, George W. Bush presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades; the Great Recession took place; and job creation during Obama's presidency has been lackluster. In this renewed debate over the Bush tax cuts, we're going to hear Republicans claim that not extending them -- especially for the wealthy -- will hurt the economy. And we'll hear the same from Obama when it comes to extending them for the middle class. But what evidence is there that these tax cuts have truly benefited the U.S. economy? This is one of these accepted pieces of conventional wisdom that doesn't get much study on the policy front because, politically, it's so lethal.

I think Obi Wan Bernanke should quantitatively ease away all our mortgages.

He might as well do the same with ours while he's at it.

Once again, Obama proves that he is stupid and cowardly, while the Republicans prove themselves just really, really stupid.  Then again, I suppose Obama's stupidty is derived from the American people.  The cowardice is all his own though.

Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2012, 12:49:06 PM
Once again, Obama proves that he is stupid and cowardly, while the Republicans prove themselves just really, really stupid.  Then again, I suppose Obama's stupidty is derived from the American people.  The cowardice is all his own though.

The $250,000+ crowd of "job creators" have had their tax cuts for 11 years.  And guess what: there ain't no fucking jobs being created by the Ed Angers, so it's time to go back to 1999 and bring back a revenue stream.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2012, 01:09:51 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2012, 12:49:06 PM
Once again, Obama proves that he is stupid and cowardly, while the Republicans prove themselves just really, really stupid.  Then again, I suppose Obama's stupidty is derived from the American people.  The cowardice is all his own though.

The $250,000+ crowd of "job creators" have had their tax cuts for 11 years.  And guess what: there ain't no fucking jobs being created by the Ed Angers, so it's time to go back to 1999 and bring back a revenue stream.

Yeah, but the consumers have also had their tax cuts for 11 years, and the only thing they did with their money was melt down the housing market.  So fuck 'em, raise taxes on everybody.

Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2012, 01:18:38 PM
Yeah, but the consumers have also had their tax cuts for 11 years, and the only thing they did with their money was melt down the housing market.  So fuck 'em, raise taxes on everybody.

Yes, because consumers approved their own mortgages and subsequently bundled them into credit default swaps.   

:rolleyes:  Douche.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2012, 10:04:50 PM
I must say I'm very pleased with the poll results.  Good on ya Languish. :cheers:

You did partially game the poll.
No self-respecting Keynsian would have designed tax legislation a la Bush 01/03 and there isn't any place in poll for a true Keynsian position.

However, I forgive you because even if the labelling is misleading, you accurately describe what unfortunately are the only likely viable options.  And of those, full extension is the least worst option.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2012, 02:16:32 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2012, 01:18:38 PM
Yeah, but the consumers have also had their tax cuts for 11 years, and the only thing they did with their money was melt down the housing market.  So fuck 'em, raise taxes on everybody.

Yes, because consumers approved their own mortgages and subsequently bundled them into credit default swaps.   

:rolleyes:  Douche.

The consumers overinflated the market.  Sure, once again part of that is the fault of predatory lenders, and the federal government is also blame with their mortgage interest tax deduction, but the consumers were the ones paying half a million dollars for a bungalow in Las Vegas or Phoenix.  The mortgages and CDSes might have melted down the economy as a whole, but the inflation of the housing market was the fault of the consumers.  In fact, they rejoiced as their property values went up and they took out home equity lines of credit.

See, your problem is that you think of everything in terms of politics and class warfare.  And that you buy wargames that never come out of the shrink wrap.

Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2012, 02:58:31 PM
See, your problem is that you think of everything in terms of politics and class warfare.  And that you buy wargames that never come out of the shrink wrap.

:rolleyes:  They do so come out of the shrink wrap.

Douche.

The bundled mortgages are CDOs.  CDS is insurance against default.  :secret:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2012, 06:10:57 PM
The bundled mortgages are CDOs.  CDS is insurance against default.  :secret:

What's your point?

I have no point.  I was telling Seedy what a CDO and CDS are.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2012, 08:33:12 PM
I have no point.  I was telling Seedy what a CDO and CDS are.

Who gives a shit if they're CDS's, COD's or MOUSE's, they weren't the consumers' fault.

I am going to blame the consumers...but mainly because most of their money is going to fill China's coffers.

We should bring back protectionism.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2012, 01:09:51 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2012, 12:49:06 PM
Once again, Obama proves that he is stupid and cowardly, while the Republicans prove themselves just really, really stupid.  Then again, I suppose Obama's stupidty is derived from the American people.  The cowardice is all his own though.

The $250,000+ crowd of "job creators" have had their tax cuts for 11 years.  And guess what: there ain't no fucking jobs being created by the Ed Angers, so it's time to go back to 1999 and bring back a revenue stream.

Hey, I created over 40 fucking jobs. IN. A. FUCKING. RECESSION.

SO DON'T LOOK AT ME.

Quote from: Ed Anger on July 10, 2012, 07:12:46 AM
Hey, I created over 40 fucking jobs. IN. A. FUCKING. RECESSION.

SO DON'T LOOK AT ME.

Procreation doesn't count.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2012, 07:48:49 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on July 10, 2012, 07:12:46 AM
Hey, I created over 40 fucking jobs. IN. A. FUCKING. RECESSION.

SO DON'T LOOK AT ME.

Procreation doesn't count.

:lol:

Should I wait to buy a home until after the fiscal cliff?

Quote from: Phillip V on July 10, 2012, 11:46:56 AM
Should I wait to buy a home until after the fiscal cliff?

Depends. If it hits equities hard (likely), then there will be a flight to bonds and interests rates will crater. OTOH, bond rates are already effectively below break-even. What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

I'm guessing--don't use the fiscal cliff to decide. Buy when you're ready.