Greece, Puerto Rico and China.

[kescwi]

How about they start collecting taxes, and let's see exactly what their income flow is supposed to be...then from there, one can determine what a reasonable outflow could be. There is a link that shows that some of the similar nations who are not on the Euro have fared better than Greece has on the Euro. It would be interesting to see if going back to their own currency would be beneficial.

You're not wrong, just sniffing down the wrong rabbit hole. How much Greek debt went to infrastructure post joining the EU? How much of that infrastructure, "debt," was mandated by the EU?

Problem is EU banks want their money, just like subprime lenders in the U.S. in '08, but they were the dumbasses, just like subprime lenders, who lent the money to a country with no real wealth producing resources.

Greece needs to default, problem is the, to use a GMM term, West is so flipping scared that if Grrece, Portugal... default it will be tantamount to the curtain being pulled back on the Great OZ. There is no there, there.

 

[kescwi]

Well you've got the conservative economic responses down pat.

1. Germany owed more, for much worse reasons. Their debt, much larger than Greece's in constant dollars, and they were able to rebuild their economy much more effectively than having to account for that debt burden or for "austerity." Their economy was "completely broke." That led to good things. Now, the biggest holder of debt to Greece is Germany, and now it's holding folks accountable. Germany didn't pay most of it's debts after WWI, and didn't pay most of their debts after WWII.

2. There are varying degrees of "Socialism." Sweden, and other countries do just fine with it. Germany is certainly more "socialist" than we are, and their economy is booming. But hey...socialism bad is one analysis.

3. Certainly Greece has responsibilities for making sure that they conduct their economic affairs responsibly if they want to stay part of the EU. If they don't meet those responsibilities, then no the EU shouldn't keep them around. Of course, OTOH, if the "reward" for doing so is more loans plus "austerity" then the result is going to be the can kicked down the road and this game will be played every few years.

4. Don't like the California/Texas example? How about the Minnesota/Wisconsin comparison? How about the hot white mess that is Kansas which has embraced every conservative economic policy there is and is in serious debt AFTER cutting taxes and social programs. The point is that "liberal" policies are implemented all over the place. Results are good in some, average in others, not so good in others. Of course, not a ton of places where conservative economic policies have resulted in booming economies, but I'm sure there's an example somewhere.

5 So where are these places in America that approach the Greek pension issue? How?

6. You listed four things: tax revenue, spending, deficits, and debt. Your sum total of all that was that the gross debt increased under Obama. More than other Presidents. Guess what, the debt under Bush increased a lot compared to prior Presidents. Generally speaking, the debt increases as time goes on in raw numbers JUST like the GDP increases in record levels all of the time in raw numbers. That's why Debt/GDP ratio is what matters, not raw numbers. Guess which nation has a higher ratio, Germany or the US?

But by all means, explain to me how the policy of cutting taxes leads to increased revenues and solves debt. And while you are at it, please tell me how one of our greatest periods of economic boom coincided with a top tax rate of 90 percent and higher debt ratios than now if debt is so overwhelmingly the only concern?

I'm only addressing #1: a big, big, big point missed in the German debt forgiveness equation is, Germany was repaying in gold backed U$D while Greece is repaying fiat. Germany could have taken their U$Ds, not borrowed coming in for the US military and exports and cashed them for gold at any time, Greece and the others have never had that luxury with their borrowed Euros. they borrowed monopoly money and now are forced to choose between default or giving up real assets for that monopoly money. No where near the same thing as the gift given Germany.

So what, German Banks don't make back what they thought they would make when they issued money created out of thin air in the form of a loan? Yeah a great reason for the suffering and pain. But then this is just a rehearsal for what is headed our way. A way to get the US sheppel prepared for the shearing we will get when the banks decide they need more, and I doubt we will get the same amount of time Greeks had to get our money out.

 

[Purdue97]

Well you've got the conservative economic responses down pat.

1. Germany owed more, for much worse reasons. Their debt, much larger than Greece's in constant dollars, and they were able to rebuild their economy much more effectively than having to account for that debt burden or for "austerity." Their economy was "completely broke." That led to good things. Now, the biggest holder of debt to Greece is Germany, and now it's holding folks accountable. Germany didn't pay most of it's debts after WWI, and didn't pay most of their debts after WWII.

2. There are varying degrees of "Socialism." Sweden, and other countries do just fine with it. Germany is certainly more "socialist" than we are, and their economy is booming. But hey...socialism bad is one analysis.

3. Certainly Greece has responsibilities for making sure that they conduct their economic affairs responsibly if they want to stay part of the EU. If they don't meet those responsibilities, then no the EU shouldn't keep them around. Of course, OTOH, if the "reward" for doing so is more loans plus "austerity" then the result is going to be the can kicked down the road and this game will be played every few years.

4. Don't like the California/Texas example? How about the Minnesota/Wisconsin comparison? How about the hot white mess that is Kansas which has embraced every conservative economic policy there is and is in serious debt AFTER cutting taxes and social programs. The point is that "liberal" policies are implemented all over the place. Results are good in some, average in others, not so good in others. Of course, not a ton of places where conservative economic policies have resulted in booming economies, but I'm sure there's an example somewhere.

5 So where are these places in America that approach the Greek pension issue? How?

6. You listed four things: tax revenue, spending, deficits, and debt. Your sum total of all that was that the gross debt increased under Obama. More than other Presidents. Guess what, the debt under Bush increased a lot compared to prior Presidents. Generally speaking, the debt increases as time goes on in raw numbers JUST like the GDP increases in record levels all of the time in raw numbers. That's why Debt/GDP ratio is what matters, not raw numbers. Guess which nation has a higher ratio, Germany or the US?

But by all means, explain to me how the policy of cutting taxes leads to increased revenues and solves debt. And while you are at it, please tell me how one of our greatest periods of economic boom coincided with a top tax rate of 90 percent and higher debt ratios than now if debt is so overwhelmingly the only concern?

You missed my point with Greece. If the people there had paid taxes, they would not need this bailout, at least not yet. So if Germany and other countries are lending them money, and now they are asking for more, and Greece did nothing to improve their situation, I would not give them help either.

As for all of these other examples between states being brought up, just do not understand it. That was my point-this thread took some strange turns. Has largely nothing to do with Greece. Different times, different places, different currencies,different situations etc etc. The merits or lack thereof with Greece stand on their own. It is almost, or it is as if you see a liberal/socialist govt falling flat on its face, and try to bring up conservative ideas/places that might or you think have failed. Really has nothing to do with Greece. Changing the topic is not an effective way to defend the position of Greece.

 

[Purdue97]

Well you've got the conservative economic responses down pat.

1. Germany owed more, for much worse reasons. Their debt, much larger than Greece's in constant dollars, and they were able to rebuild their economy much more effectively than having to account for that debt burden or for "austerity." Their economy was "completely broke." That led to good things. Now, the biggest holder of debt to Greece is Germany, and now it's holding folks accountable. Germany didn't pay most of it's debts after WWI, and didn't pay most of their debts after WWII.

2. There are varying degrees of "Socialism." Sweden, and other countries do just fine with it. Germany is certainly more "socialist" than we are, and their economy is booming. But hey...socialism bad is one analysis.

3. Certainly Greece has responsibilities for making sure that they conduct their economic affairs responsibly if they want to stay part of the EU. If they don't meet those responsibilities, then no the EU shouldn't keep them around. Of course, OTOH, if the "reward" for doing so is more loans plus "austerity" then the result is going to be the can kicked down the road and this game will be played every few years.

4. Don't like the California/Texas example? How about the Minnesota/Wisconsin comparison? How about the hot white mess that is Kansas which has embraced every conservative economic policy there is and is in serious debt AFTER cutting taxes and social programs. The point is that "liberal" policies are implemented all over the place. Results are good in some, average in others, not so good in others. Of course, not a ton of places where conservative economic policies have resulted in booming economies, but I'm sure there's an example somewhere.

5 So where are these places in America that approach the Greek pension issue? How?

6. You listed four things: tax revenue, spending, deficits, and debt. Your sum total of all that was that the gross debt increased under Obama. More than other Presidents. Guess what, the debt under Bush increased a lot compared to prior Presidents. Generally speaking, the debt increases as time goes on in raw numbers JUST like the GDP increases in record levels all of the time in raw numbers. That's why Debt/GDP ratio is what matters, not raw numbers. Guess which nation has a higher ratio, Germany or the US?

But by all means, explain to me how the policy of cutting taxes leads to increased revenues and solves debt. And while you are at it, please tell me how one of our greatest periods of economic boom coincided with a top tax rate of 90 percent and higher debt ratios than now if debt is so overwhelmingly the only concern?

Not that these points have much or anything to do with Greece but I will play.

1. Germany's debts were forgiven. I would also add that they were divided , occupied for decades, and had a lot of other stipulations put on them after defeat and surrender. Not exactly the same situations. Greece has done largely nothing.

2. I would agree there are varying degrees of socialism. But now you are really trying to compare Sweden and Germany to Greece by socialism? What a joke. Germany and Sweden are some of the most open countries with trade, product development, and global investment. Much closer to the US then Greece. In terms of economic freedom they are very comparable, if not ranked the same or near the same as the USA.

3. I do not disagree. Like I mentioned in my first post in all of this Greece is not even here right now if they pay their taxes. But really with Greece their is no way their economy should not be booming with tourism and infrastructure development.

I visited Greece while stationed in Europe. I remember going into a popular restaurant more than once, and we got to know the owner. Great food but long lines/waits. We asked him why he did not hire more people. He basically said he could not cause of the Govt rules. If he hired a ft worker, he could not lay them off. He could not hire 2 pt workers because he would have to hire one ft worker instead. At no point could he cut hours either.

No idea how true this is, or how well we understood what he tried to explain. But I got to to say, if this is remotely near the truth their economy needs a lot of work. I hired three people this year at 2.25X the American Average salary, people rate teh benefits as slightly above average(average being what they had before). I got to say, if we had rules like that, I would not have hired anyone.

4. The CA /TX is irrelevant. CA is doing better than it has been. Anybody pointing to CA as a success for a more liberal/socialist govt agenda is really hurting for an argument. they had been hurting for decades before finally turning things around. TX is too reliant on energy.

5. MN/WI-not sure you have a point there either. Pretty even. Slight edge to MN. But keep in mind MN gets a pretty big bump from the ND/Canadian oil boom. And oil production is hardly a liberal mainstay in this country unlike other socialist countries in Europe..

Anyway, Bush cut taxes and revenue increased. just got to find someone to cut social spending and maintain infrastructure and military while they are at it. Never recall saying debt was the main issue, you or someone else brought that up earlier in thread. I was more concerned with Greece not being able to pay bills nor making changes to be able to do so. If htey had a freer economy, they can carry debt and still pay hte bills.

 

[qazplm]

You missed my point with Greece. If the people there had paid taxes, they would not need this bailout, at least not yet. So if Germany and other countries are lending them money, and now they are asking for more, and Greece did nothing to improve their situation, I would not give them help either.

As for all of these other examples between states being brought up, just do not understand it. That was my point-this thread took some strange turns. Has largely nothing to do with Greece. Different times, different places, different currencies,different situations etc etc. The merits or lack thereof with Greece stand on their own. It is almost, or it is as if you see a liberal/socialist govt falling flat on its face, and try to bring up conservative ideas/places that might or you think have failed. Really has nothing to do with Greece. Changing the topic is not an effective way to defend the position of Greece.

Yes it was me bringing up conservative v liberal, it wasn't me responding to gr8 doing that...oh wait...

 

[qazplm]

Not that these points have much or anything to do with Greece but I will play.

1. Germany's debts were forgiven. I would also add that they were divided , occupied for decades, and had a lot of other stipulations put on them after defeat and surrender. Not exactly the same situations. Greece has done largely nothing.

2. I would agree there are varying degrees of socialism. But now you are really trying to compare Sweden and Germany to Greece by socialism? What a joke. Germany and Sweden are some of the most open countries with trade, product development, and global investment. Much closer to the US then Greece. In terms of economic freedom they are very comparable, if not ranked the same or near the same as the USA.

3. I do not disagree. Like I mentioned in my first post in all of this Greece is not even here right now if they pay their taxes. But really with Greece their is no way their economy should not be booming with tourism and infrastructure development.

I visited Greece while stationed in Europe. I remember going into a popular restaurant more than once, and we got to know the owner. Great food but long lines/waits. We asked him why he did not hire more people. He basically said he could not cause of the Govt rules. If he hired a ft worker, he could not lay them off. He could not hire 2 pt workers because he would have to hire one ft worker instead. At no point could he cut hours either.

No idea how true this is, or how well we understood what he tried to explain. But I got to to say, if this is remotely near the truth their economy needs a lot of work. I hired three people this year at 2.25X the American Average salary, people rate teh benefits as slightly above average(average being what they had before). I got to say, if we had rules like that, I would not have hired anyone.

4. The CA /TX is irrelevant. CA is doing better than it has been. Anybody pointing to CA as a success for a more liberal/socialist govt agenda is really hurting for an argument. they had been hurting for decades before finally turning things around. TX is too reliant on energy.

5. MN/WI-not sure you have a point there either. Pretty even. Slight edge to MN. But keep in mind MN gets a pretty big bump from the ND/Canadian oil boom. And oil production is hardly a liberal mainstay in this country unlike other socialist countries in Europe..

Anyway, Bush cut taxes and revenue increased. just got to find someone to cut social spending and maintain infrastructure and military while they are at it. Never recall saying debt was the main issue, you or someone else brought that up earlier in thread. I was more concerned with Greece not being able to pay bills nor making changes to be able to do so. If htey had a freer economy, they can carry debt and still pay hte bills.

1. Germany's restriction did not include austerity measures and a requirement to pay back their huge debts. So the fact that they were occupied means nothing to the effect on their economy. They were allowed to run their economy as they saw fit, the only real limitation in that area was on the use of their military and that's not an economic hindrance.

2. You've got to be kidding me. You respond with blah blah socialism blah blah. I respond with saying socialism is pretty silly since Greece is but one example and there are other nations that are socialist and do well, then you return with yes that's true and I can't believe you compared Greece with other, more successful socialist nations. What a joke indeed. And no, in terms of economic freedom Greece is quite up there. They don't require, apparently, anyone to pay taxes, that's about as economically free as you can get. That's part of the problem.

3. This is my whole point. Before deciding what, if any, "austerity" measures should be put in place...measures that cause real pain to real people, the first order of business should be locking down on tax collection and figuring out just how much money they have to work with. THEN you decide what, if anything, you need to cut down on. doing the opposite, which is what is happening, is insanity.

4. See you're going to ignore the Minnesota/Wisconsin point, or the Kansas point.

5. Oh wait no, you just pretended there isn't a large difference between the MN and WI economies. That MN isn't booming while WI is struggling.

Employment rate:

Job growth, unemployment rate, employment numbers all favor MN including a full percentage point difference in unemployment and nonfarm employment.

Personal income:

MN is better by two full percentage points...and before you pretend that's "slight" 1-2 percentage points is a major difference in numbers like these.

Two fairly comparable states. Similar demographics, neighbors, with vastly different economic approaches, and the liberal approach beats the conservative approach across the board. Let's not even think about comparing MN to KS which has put in place every far right economic principle and is falling apart.

6. Bush did not cut taxes and revenue increased BECAUSE of the tax cuts. That you parrot this is head-shaking. Federal tax receipts as a raw number have pretty much moved up on a graph at a straight 45 degree angle since 1960 Why? Because we've been steadily growing our population.

Of course there are two exceptions, take a look at this graph and tell me who was President at the start of both exceptions (hint, it's the same guy, and it's the guy we are talking about):

But still, those are anomalies at best, and the overall plot is pretty much a straight line. Federal receipts go up most every year in raw numbers because the population goes up most every year, and more and more people are paying taxes every year. When you have more people every year paying taxes, your tax receipts tend to go up.

Which is why economists don't look at raw numbers. Just like looking at debt to GDP ratio instead of raw debt when talking about whether debt is healthy or not, they look at tax receipts to GDP ratio when talking about whether tax revenue is healthy:

• In recent decades the federal tax take has generally fluctuated between 17 and 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2000, however, total federal tax receipts had reached 20.9 percent of GDP, their highest level since 1970 and matched only in 1944, when the federal government collected 20.9 percent of GDP in taxes at the height of fighting World War II. By 2004, however, federal tax receipts had fallen to 16.3 percent of GDP, which is not only the lowest level since 1970, but the lowest since 1959.
• Most of the decline in the ratio of federal tax revenue to GDP can be traced to the individual income tax. From 1970 to 2000 these taxes were typically in the range of 8 to 9 percent of GDP. In 2000 individual income taxes were 10.3 percent of GDP, their highest level ever. By 2004 individual income taxes had dropped to 7.0 percent of GDP, their lowest level since 1951. Total federal tax revenue declined by 4.6 percent of GDP from 2000 to 2004; of that total, 3.3 percentage points, or almost three-quarters, was due to the decline in individual income tax revenue.
• Most of the remaining decline in the revenue-to-GDP ratio resulted from a drop in the share in total revenue coming from corporate income taxes, which fell by 0.5 percent of GDP from 2000 to 2004, and a drop in the share coming from the payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare, which declined by 0.4 percent of GDP over that period.

from: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/revenue.cfm

"Tax revenue was up" is an answer one can give in just about any period of American history going back to the beginning of the 60s.

 

[kescwi]

The problem is that before the financial crisis, Greece's employment rate was only 53-ish percent, and that includes their bloated public sector. That's not a recipe for the type of prosperity they enjoyed for the decade or so before this bubble burst. Large scale fiscal mismanagement come home to roost...

Here is my problem with all of this, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy... Where never models of proper fiscal management before joining the EU and the EU and their banks knew what they were getting into. This is like the restaurant the mob takes over in "Goodfellas," banks poured debt into these countries knowing they would couldn't be paid back and would blow up yet these same lenders are being payed back with bailout money and will more than likely buy or finance the purchase of public assets as/if/when Greece is forced to privatize everything.

Yes, these peripheral EU countries now in trouble have long histories of corruption and mismanagement but what is happening to them now is an old, old con.

 

[kescwi]

Yes of course it was the Bush tax cuts and had absolutely nothing at all to do with the devastating debt bubble being blown up at the time.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

1. Germany's restriction did not include austerity measures and a requirement to pay back their huge debts. So the fact that they were occupied means nothing to the effect on their economy. They were allowed to run their economy as they saw fit, the only real limitation in that area was on the use of their military and that's not an economic hindrance.

2. You've got to be kidding me. You respond with blah blah socialism blah blah. I respond with saying socialism is pretty silly since Greece is but one example and there are other nations that are socialist and do well, then you return with yes that's true and I can't believe you compared Greece with other, more successful socialist nations. What a joke indeed. And no, in terms of economic freedom Greece is quite up there. They don't require, apparently, anyone to pay taxes, that's about as economically free as you can get. That's part of the problem.

3. This is my whole point. Before deciding what, if any, "austerity" measures should be put in place...measures that cause real pain to real people, the first order of business should be locking down on tax collection and figuring out just how much money they have to work with. THEN you decide what, if anything, you need to cut down on. doing the opposite, which is what is happening, is insanity.

4. See you're going to ignore the Minnesota/Wisconsin point, or the Kansas point.

5. Oh wait no, you just pretended there isn't a large difference between the MN and WI economies. That MN isn't booming while WI is struggling.

Employment rate:

Job growth, unemployment rate, employment numbers all favor MN including a full percentage point difference in unemployment and nonfarm employment.

Personal income:

MN is better by two full percentage points...and before you pretend that's "slight" 1-2 percentage points is a major difference in numbers like these.

Two fairly comparable states. Similar demographics, neighbors, with vastly different economic approaches, and the liberal approach beats the conservative approach across the board. Let's not even think about comparing MN to KS which has put in place every far right economic principle and is falling apart.

6. Bush did not cut taxes and revenue increased BECAUSE of the tax cuts. That you parrot this is head-shaking. Federal tax receipts as a raw number have pretty much moved up on a graph at a straight 45 degree angle since 1960 Why? Because we've been steadily growing our population.

Of course there are two exceptions, take a look at this graph and tell me who was President at the start of both exceptions (hint, it's the same guy, and it's the guy we are talking about):

But still, those are anomalies at best, and the overall plot is pretty much a straight line. Federal receipts go up most every year in raw numbers because the population goes up most every year, and more and more people are paying taxes every year. When you have more people every year paying taxes, your tax receipts tend to go up.

Which is why economists don't look at raw numbers. Just like looking at debt to GDP ratio instead of raw debt when talking about whether debt is healthy or not, they look at tax receipts to GDP ratio when talking about whether tax revenue is healthy:

• In recent decades the federal tax take has generally fluctuated between 17 and 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2000, however, total federal tax receipts had reached 20.9 percent of GDP, their highest level since 1970 and matched only in 1944, when the federal government collected 20.9 percent of GDP in taxes at the height of fighting World War II. By 2004, however, federal tax receipts had fallen to 16.3 percent of GDP, which is not only the lowest level since 1970, but the lowest since 1959.
• Most of the decline in the ratio of federal tax revenue to GDP can be traced to the individual income tax. From 1970 to 2000 these taxes were typically in the range of 8 to 9 percent of GDP. In 2000 individual income taxes were 10.3 percent of GDP, their highest level ever. By 2004 individual income taxes had dropped to 7.0 percent of GDP, their lowest level since 1951. Total federal tax revenue declined by 4.6 percent of GDP from 2000 to 2004; of that total, 3.3 percentage points, or almost three-quarters, was due to the decline in individual income tax revenue.
• Most of the remaining decline in the revenue-to-GDP ratio resulted from a drop in the share in total revenue coming from corporate income taxes, which fell by 0.5 percent of GDP from 2000 to 2004, and a drop in the share coming from the payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare, which declined by 0.4 percent of GDP over that period.

from: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/revenue.cfm

"Tax revenue was up" is an answer one can give in just about any period of American history going back to the beginning of the 60s.

The graph: there are more than two exceptions. The scale shows only two, but in previous years there were exceptions that don't show up because they are minuscule compared to current revenue levels. That you point out the 45 degree incline and use scale and population growth to defend uour argument while ignoring this obvious point displays how intellectually dishonest you can be in your arguments.

The other question is how you can say austerity hurts real people but collection of taxes does not. Whether you lower pension/social program income or raise value added or income taxes doesn't make a difference: either way you're taking money from the hands of people and returning it to the government. This is especially troubling in Greece where the government has never shown the ability to properly manage the money they have, regardless of source.

I agree that fiscal overhaul to include tax collection is required. I do not agree that lenders should continue to give the government money on good faith - the government hasn't made the changes they promised in the last two deals, including missing marks on reduction of military spending by the way.

I just don't get how you separate austerity (reduction of government outlays) and increased revenue when the net effect on the people is roughly equivalent.

 

[qazplm]

The graph: there are more than two exceptions. The scale shows only two, but in previous years there were exceptions that don't show up because they are minuscule compared to current revenue levels. That you point out the 45 degree incline and use scale and population growth to defend uour argument while ignoring this obvious point displays how intellectually dishonest you can be in your arguments.

The other question is how you can say austerity hurts real people but collection of taxes does not. Whether you lower pension/social program income or raise value added or income taxes doesn't make a difference: either way you're taking money from the hands of people and returning it to the government. This is especially troubling in Greece where the government has never shown the ability to properly manage the money they have, regardless of source.

I agree that fiscal overhaul to include tax collection is required. I do not agree that lenders should continue to give the government money on good faith - the government hasn't made the changes they promised in the last two deals, including missing marks on reduction of military spending by the way.

I just don't get how you separate austerity (reduction of government outlays) and increased revenue when the net effect on the people is roughly equivalent.

Lol so let me get this straight... It's intellectually dishonest to ignore what you yourself rightfully call "miniscule" declines but not intellectually dishonest to talk about as if they are remotely meaningful.

Yep you're totally right I ignored tiny, meaningless declines to focus on the two substantive ones. Are you ****ing kidding me?

I didn't say Anything about continuing to give Greece money without conditions being attached, would you like me to repeat again those conditions? For a third time?

Fair taxation doesn't hurt anyone unfairly particularly since people get something back for what they pay in whether it is yes pensions or health care or other benefits. The taxes don't just get burned up, they get used, ideally, to benefit the people.

Austerity as practiced hurts people almost exclusively...they are still paying taxes but they receive less of the benefits.

Greece is in a double whammy...they don't collect taxes AND they overspend which is literally the worst thing you can do. If they fix the front end of that, for all we know the back end would be fine.

 

[qazplm]

Yes of course it was the Bush tax cuts and had absolutely nothing at all to do with the devastating debt bubble being blown up at the time.

Well if you want to list every single cause:

Tax cuts
Unpaid for Medicare part d
Unpaid for wars times 2
Debt collapse

 

[gr8indoorsman]

In 50 years the two exceptions you're pointing to regarding Bush will be similarly minuscule. This is a simple concept to grasp if you choose to grasp it and lines up with exactly how you described the graph yourself. So yes, I do consider it intellectually dishonest because I think you're smart enough to grasp it.

Taxes only affect everyone equally if you have a fair tax code. As a liberal, I assume you are in favor of a progressive tax code, thus your statement about austerity vs. taxes is false as taxes then "punish" wealthy folks for being wealthy. I get it. They can afford to pay more. Ideologically, I've never agreed with it.

Admittedly, I don't know what kind of tax structure Greece has for income. Their value added tax is practically punitive. 23% on restaurant expenditures? Good grief!

 

[qazplm]

In 50 years the two exceptions you're pointing to regarding Bush will be similarly minuscule. This is a simple concept to grasp if you choose to grasp it and lines up with exactly how you described the graph yourself. So yes, I do consider it intellectually dishonest because I think you're smart enough to grasp it.

Taxes only affect everyone equally if you have a fair tax code. As a liberal, I assume you are in favor of a progressive tax code, thus your statement about austerity vs. taxes is false as taxes then "punish" wealthy folks for being wealthy. I get it. They can afford to pay more. Ideologically, I've never agreed with it.

Admittedly, I don't know what kind of tax structure Greece has for income. Their value added tax is practically punitive. 23% on restaurant expenditures? Good grief!

uh no, they won't. they were significant downturns...as is noted also by the significant changes in gdp to tax receipt ratio. Those were the two largest downturns, the only significant downturns in 50 years, an additional 50 years is not going to change the graph unless somehow the rate of increase either significantly increases or decreases by an order of magnitude or two. Tiny changes get smoothed out over time, bigger ones, like these two, do not get smoothed out without significant changes in the rate of increase or decrease.

There are only three spots where the direction actually turns negative:

82
01ish
07

82 has MAYBE a 2% change.
01 is pretty clearly at or near 5%
07 is pretty clearly 15%

That's it, those are the three times where the x axis actually turns negative on that chart...everywhere else it levels off for a moment before growing again.

Taxes do not "punish" the wealthy. Yes, they can afford to pay more just like you don't expect grandma to move the exact same weight things as you when you help her move to a new place. You aren't being "punished" because you are bigger and stronger, you carry more because you can, and because it doesn't hurt you, and you don't expect her to carry the same because she physically can't, yet at the end of the day, the moving gets accomplished.

I suspect when you don't bother collecting income taxes, then you have to make up for it with other taxes...then again, I don't know if they collect those taxes either. What I do know is that apparently there is rampant non-payment by both individuals and businesses of income taxes...so start there, then adjust things after you fix that.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Good opinions. I disagree with most of them.

 

[Purdue97]

1. Germany's restriction did not include austerity measures and a requirement to pay back their huge debts. So the fact that they were occupied means nothing to the effect on their economy. They were allowed to run their economy as they saw fit, the only real limitation in that area was on the use of their military and that's not an economic hindrance.

2. You've got to be kidding me. You respond with blah blah socialism blah blah. I respond with saying socialism is pretty silly since Greece is but one example and there are other nations that are socialist and do well, then you return with yes that's true and I can't believe you compared Greece with other, more successful socialist nations. What a joke indeed. And no, in terms of economic freedom Greece is quite up there. They don't require, apparently, anyone to pay taxes, that's about as economically free as you can get. That's part of the problem.

3. This is my whole point. Before deciding what, if any, "austerity" measures should be put in place...measures that cause real pain to real people, the first order of business should be locking down on tax collection and figuring out just how much money they have to work with. THEN you decide what, if anything, you need to cut down on. doing the opposite, which is what is happening, is insanity.

4. See you're going to ignore the Minnesota/Wisconsin point, or the Kansas point.

5. Oh wait no, you just pretended there isn't a large difference between the MN and WI economies. That MN isn't booming while WI is struggling.

Employment rate:

Job growth, unemployment rate, employment numbers all favor MN including a full percentage point difference in unemployment and nonfarm employment.

Personal income:

MN is better by two full percentage points...and before you pretend that's "slight" 1-2 percentage points is a major difference in numbers like these.

Two fairly comparable states. Similar demographics, neighbors, with vastly different economic approaches, and the liberal approach beats the conservative approach across the board. Let's not even think about comparing MN to KS which has put in place every far right economic principle and is falling apart.

6. Bush did not cut taxes and revenue increased BECAUSE of the tax cuts. That you parrot this is head-shaking. Federal tax receipts as a raw number have pretty much moved up on a graph at a straight 45 degree angle since 1960 Why? Because we've been steadily growing our population.

Of course there are two exceptions, take a look at this graph and tell me who was President at the start of both exceptions (hint, it's the same guy, and it's the guy we are talking about):

But still, those are anomalies at best, and the overall plot is pretty much a straight line. Federal receipts go up most every year in raw numbers because the population goes up most every year, and more and more people are paying taxes every year. When you have more people every year paying taxes, your tax receipts tend to go up.

Which is why economists don't look at raw numbers. Just like looking at debt to GDP ratio instead of raw debt when talking about whether debt is healthy or not, they look at tax receipts to GDP ratio when talking about whether tax revenue is healthy:

• In recent decades the federal tax take has generally fluctuated between 17 and 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2000, however, total federal tax receipts had reached 20.9 percent of GDP, their highest level since 1970 and matched only in 1944, when the federal government collected 20.9 percent of GDP in taxes at the height of fighting World War II. By 2004, however, federal tax receipts had fallen to 16.3 percent of GDP, which is not only the lowest level since 1970, but the lowest since 1959.
• Most of the decline in the ratio of federal tax revenue to GDP can be traced to the individual income tax. From 1970 to 2000 these taxes were typically in the range of 8 to 9 percent of GDP. In 2000 individual income taxes were 10.3 percent of GDP, their highest level ever. By 2004 individual income taxes had dropped to 7.0 percent of GDP, their lowest level since 1951. Total federal tax revenue declined by 4.6 percent of GDP from 2000 to 2004; of that total, 3.3 percentage points, or almost three-quarters, was due to the decline in individual income tax revenue.
• Most of the remaining decline in the revenue-to-GDP ratio resulted from a drop in the share in total revenue coming from corporate income taxes, which fell by 0.5 percent of GDP from 2000 to 2004, and a drop in the share coming from the payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare, which declined by 0.4 percent of GDP over that period.

from: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/revenue.cfm

"Tax revenue was up" is an answer one can give in just about any period of American history going back to the beginning of the 60s.

Here is my problem with all of this, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy... Where never models of proper fiscal management before joining the EU and the EU and their banks knew what they were getting into. This is like the restaurant the mob takes over in "Goodfellas," banks poured debt into these countries knowing they would couldn't be paid back and would blow up yet these same lenders are being payed back with bailout money and will more than likely buy or finance the purchase of public assets as/if/when Greece is forced to privatize everything.

Yes, these peripheral EU countries now in trouble have long histories of corruption and mismanagement but what is happening to them now is an old, old con.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Like I said, trying to compare Sweden and Germany to Greece because they are socialist is a joke. The US is 12th, Germany is 16th, and Sweden 23rd. Greece is somewhere around 120-130.

That Greece does not collect taxes so they can pay bills, is not a symbol of freedom as you put it, but more a sign of crap government that chooses not to collect them to get voted into office. So, if Greece was asking me for money, no way could I ask constituents for more money for this. Simply put, they would need to make a lot of changes. Instead of going through this every two years, make meaningful changes or go back to the drachma.

I looked back at it and you were the one that brought up Bush years and trumped Cali.

Topics that were changed because Greece socialism could not be defended on its own:

I did indeed say that MN was doing slightly better than WI. I also pointed out why, that they are reaping the benefits from the ND and Canadian oil shale boom. Their officials have even admitted and stated as much. that places in their state have taken off due to it. I find it really hypocritical that liberals, who are deadset against producing fossil fuels, have no issues taking credit for the lift it gave to economies. You are like them, you just ignored it.

I am not sure about Kansas, do not know much about why they did what they did. I will read up on it some time. But hey, if they did what they did to get their books in order, knowing it would cause some pain, I support it.

I get the Bush cuts and revenue. I am just not sure why you say the revenues were cut when you supply graphs showing they went up and state revenues will go up due to population regardless. Also, Clinton has said himsel that he put taxes to high.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charles...ous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

 

[qazplm]

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Like I said, trying to compare Sweden and Germany to Greece because they are socialist is a joke. The US is 12th, Germany is 16th, and Sweden 23rd. Greece is somewhere around 120-130.

That Greece does not collect taxes so they can pay bills, is not a symbol of freedom as you put it, but more a sign of crap government that chooses not to collect them to get voted into office. So, if Greece was asking me for money, no way could I ask constituents for more money for this. Simply put, they would need to make a lot of changes. Instead of going through this every two years, make meaningful changes or go back to the drachma.

I looked back at it and you were the one that brought up Bush years and trumped Cali.

Topics that were changed because Greece socialism could not be defended on its own:

I did indeed say that MN was doing slightly better than WI. I also pointed out why, that they are reaping the benefits from the ND and Canadian oil shale boom. Their officials have even admitted and stated as much. that places in their state have taken off due to it. I find it really hypocritical that liberals, who are deadset against producing fossil fuels, have no issues taking credit for the lift it gave to economies. You are like them, you just ignored it.

I am not sure about Kansas, do not know much about why they did what they did. I will read up on it some time. But hey, if they did what they did to get their books in order, knowing it would cause some pain, I support it.

I get the Bush cuts and revenue. I am just not sure why you say the revenues were cut when you supply graphs showing they went up and state revenues will go up due to population regardless. Also, Clinton has said himsel that he put taxes to high.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charles...ous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

yes it is a joke, so why did you type "socialist" as if all socialist countries were the same?
Then twice now, you've characterized my attempt to show differences as "comparing"....I think you have a hard time with the meaning of that word.

You "looked back?" This is the first post I talked about Cali or any state, it literally has the post from gr8 I was responding to...looked back my ass:

?gr8indoorsman said: ↑
Greece is another example of the failed economic principles you and your ilk espouse along with Sacramento, Chicago, Illinois, Detroit. There are parallels across the board. To keep pretending it isn't so it just plain ignorant, I'm sorry.
that's not a remotely fact-based point since California is sitting in a really good place right now while Texas has issues. Greece and the other places don't even the share the "same economic principles" or the same problems. There is no advocating retiring in your fifties, and tax collection is quite professionally done here. Pensions aren't the only issue and they aren't even in the same boat there.

It's like saying since Soviet Russia fell and communism doesn't work, that must me no liberal economic policies work."

do you know how to read a graph? The graph LITERALLY shows revenues going down twice during Bush's time. Raw numbers even, since apparently you are ignoring that fact that revenues go up more or less all of the time since 1960s...except after the Bush tax cuts, and I forgot after the first set of Reagan tax cuts.

It literally doesn't matter what I type with you does it?

 

[kescwi]

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Like I said, trying to compare Sweden and Germany to Greece because they are socialist is a joke. The US is 12th, Germany is 16th, and Sweden 23rd. Greece is somewhere around 120-130.

That Greece does not collect taxes so they can pay bills, is not a symbol of freedom as you put it, but more a sign of crap government that chooses not to collect them to get voted into office. So, if Greece was asking me for money, no way could I ask constituents for more money for this. Simply put, they would need to make a lot of changes. Instead of going through this every two years, make meaningful changes or go back to the drachma.

I looked back at it and you were the one that brought up Bush years and trumped Cali.

Topics that were changed because Greece socialism could not be defended on its own:

I did indeed say that MN was doing slightly better than WI. I also pointed out why, that they are reaping the benefits from the ND and Canadian oil shale boom. Their officials have even admitted and stated as much. that places in their state have taken off due to it. I find it really hypocritical that liberals, who are deadset against producing fossil fuels, have no issues taking credit for the lift it gave to economies. You are like them, you just ignored it.

I am not sure about Kansas, do not know much about why they did what they did. I will read up on it some time. But hey, if they did what they did to get their books in order, knowing it would cause some pain, I support it.

I get the Bush cuts and revenue. I am just not sure why you say the revenues were cut when you supply graphs showing they went up and state revenues will go up due to population regardless. Also, Clinton has said himsel that he put taxes to high.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charles...ous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

The major difference between Germany/Sweden and Greece is ordoliberalism. Ordo is not really "socialism" as I think you're referring to it, government control of the economy, but rather it's about creating, through laws and regulation, a more inclusive, competitive market economy.

 

[Purdue97]

yes it is a joke, so why did you type "socialist" as if all socialist countries were the same?
Then twice now, you've characterized my attempt to show differences as "comparing"....I think you have a hard time with the meaning of that word.

You "looked back?" This is the first post I talked about Cali or any state, it literally has the post from gr8 I was responding to...looked back my ass:

?gr8indoorsman said: ↑
Greece is another example of the failed economic principles you and your ilk espouse along with Sacramento, Chicago, Illinois, Detroit. There are parallels across the board. To keep pretending it isn't so it just plain ignorant, I'm sorry.
that's not a remotely fact-based point since California is sitting in a really good place right now while Texas has issues. Greece and the other places don't even the share the "same economic principles" or the same problems. There is no advocating retiring in your fifties, and tax collection is quite professionally done here. Pensions aren't the only issue and they aren't even in the same boat there.

It's like saying since Soviet Russia fell and communism doesn't work, that must me no liberal economic policies work."

do you know how to read a graph? The graph LITERALLY shows revenues going down twice during Bush's time. Raw numbers even, since apparently you are ignoring that fact that revenues go up more or less all of the time since 1960s...except after the Bush tax cuts, and I forgot after the first set of Reagan tax cuts.

It literally doesn't matter what I type with you does it?

The one time I used socialism in a blanket statement was when I said the problem with socialism is that evantually you run out of others money. Like it or not, that applies to Greece right now. That was it. You went on a tantrum saying that my post was filled with blah blah socialism blah blah. Whatever.

But yes of course I know there are different levels of economic freedom from communism on the left, socialism in the center, free market on the right. Believe it or not I agreed with you. I did refute your remarks about comapring Greece to Sweden and Germany. And if you look at the charts I supplied you will see that Sweden and Germany are grouped in with countries like England, Canada, and USA. Greece is grouped in with the exact opposite at the other end of the spectrum. So therefore your comparison, or to even bring Greece up with Sweden and Germany is not accurate.

Sure I looked back at the thread. And I got to say, you were the main one that really changed the topic from Greece to other places to now a thread dominated by Bush tax cuts somehow. That is why I divided posts between Greece and all the other topics. Not a surprise really, every time an issue comes up with Obama, a liberal, in this case socialism-the topic somehow gets dragged to Bush and tax cuts. Luckily for the left over 50% of the country does not care or buys into it.

I saw the graph-it is nothing new. I was basing my thoughts on it generally trends up. Also, Clinton has been pretty honest about tax rates and the slow down near his end of time in office. If you want to blame 08-09 on tax cuts and not on legislation passed by both parties 10-30 years earlier that is your opinion, you have a right to it, and I obviously disagree.

 

[qazplm]

The one time I used socialism in a blanket statement was when I said the problem with socialism is that evantually you run out of others money. Like it or not, that applies to Greece right now. That was it. You went on a tantrum saying that my post was filled with blah blah socialism blah blah. Whatever.

But yes of course I know there are different levels of economic freedom from communism on the left, socialism in the center, free market on the right. Believe it or not I agreed with you. I did refute your remarks about comapring Greece to Sweden and Germany. And if you look at the charts I supplied you will see that Sweden and Germany are grouped in with countries like England, Canada, and USA. Greece is grouped in with the exact opposite at the other end of the spectrum. So therefore your comparison, or to even bring Greece up with Sweden and Germany is not accurate.

Sure I looked back at the thread. And I got to say, you were the main one that really changed the topic from Greece to other places to now a thread dominated by Bush tax cuts somehow. That is why I divided posts between Greece and all the other topics. Not a surprise really, every time an issue comes up with Obama, a liberal, in this case socialism-the topic somehow gets dragged to Bush and tax cuts. Luckily for the left over 50% of the country does not care or buys into it.

I saw the graph-it is nothing new. I was basing my thoughts on it generally trends up. Also, Clinton has been pretty honest about tax rates and the slow down near his end of time in office. If you want to blame 08-09 on tax cuts and not on legislation passed by both parties 10-30 years earlier that is your opinion, you have a right to it, and I obviously disagree.

FFS, I didn't favorably "compare" Greece to Sweden and Germany, I responded to your simplistic "socialism" post but pointing out the vast differences between socialist countries and economies. When you just type "socialism" it is YOU that is lumping in Greece with Sweden and Germany. That you cannot see that, and that you think, even after I've explained the point of discussing Greece, Sweden and Germany is not to compare but to differentiate, and you still say the exact same things is mind-boggling.

The first mention I made about "other places" was AFTER Gr8 talked about how Greece was just like places in the US, so no, I was not The first person who changed the topic from Greece to other places...I literally, explicitly, and clearly was not. But please point to the post BEFORE Gr8's response where I did so. Go ahead, I'll wait...should be easy enough right?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Greece is another example of the failed economic principles you and your ilk espouse along with Sacramento, Chicago, Illinois, Detroit. There are parallels across the board. To keep pretending it isn't so it just plain ignorant, I'm sorry.

The first mention I made about "other places" was AFTER Gr8 talked about how Greece was just like places in the US, so no, I was not The first person who changed the topic from Greece to other places...

Not quite the same thing.

 

[Purdue97]

.

The major difference between Germany/Sweden and Greece is ordoliberalism. Ordo is not really "socialism" as I think you're referring to it, government control of the economy, but rather it's about creating, through laws and regulation, a more inclusive, competitive market economy.

I get that fine. That is why if I was ever making an argument for socialism/Greece I would never say all socialism cannot be bad because Sweden and Germany have booming economies. Just no comparison between Germany/Sweden and Greece. They are grouped in with USA in terms of economic freedom.

When I said the problem with socialism is you run out of others money-that was one sentence of a page long post that was done to state a longstanding joke. Qaz took it as the heart of my post.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

.
When I said the problem with socialism is you run out of others money-that was one sentence of a page long post that was done to state a longstanding joke. Qaz took it as the heart of my post.

He does that, and then gets pissed when someone does it back to him. Might as well ram your head into a wall just like arguing with a few other folks on this board.

 

[SDBoiler1]

He does that, and then gets pissed when someone does it back to him. Might as well ram your head into a wall just like arguing with a few other folks on this board.

gr8,

As a lawyer, it seems that qazplm has very little ability or compulsion to ever admit he's wrong on any subject at any time. People sometimes come at him with good arguments and he'll just tap dance around the edges of their post, trying to find one little iota to divert or distract attention from the heart of the message.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

gr8,

As a lawyer, it seems that qazplm has very little ability or compulsion to ever admit he's wrong on any subject at any time. People sometimes come at him with good arguments and he'll just tap dance around the edges of their post, trying to find one little iota to divert or distract attention from the heart of the message.

Not once in his mind has he ever been wrong. Perhaps the scenario that made me no longer willing to engage in long threads discussing points was the Mike Brown case. When that much evidence is laid out and you still defend a bad position and are unwilling to ever even imply that maybe you got it wrong, I figured it was time to resort to a lot more "I disagree" a lot sooner and just leave it.

 

[qazplm]

Not quite the same thing.

absolutely the same thing.

 

[qazplm]

Not once in his mind has he ever been wrong. Perhaps the scenario that made me no longer willing to engage in long threads discussing points was the Mike Brown case. When that much evidence is laid out and you still defend a bad position and are unwilling to ever even imply that maybe you got it wrong, I figured it was time to resort to a lot more "I disagree" a lot sooner and just leave it.

you never appear to read half of what I type, and make up another 30 percent so I suspect you never know what I defend or what I concede.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

absolutely the same thing.

Yeah, OK.

you never appear to read half of what I type, and make up another 30 percent so I suspect you never know what I defend or what I concede.

Yeah, I do. You concede nothing. When others are willing to concede portions of your points, you trample the rest of their thoughts until you feel like you're entirely right. The concept of meeting in the middle or accepting that the truth likely lies between your view and someone else's is utterly foreign to you. It is your way or no way. You are the very definition of insufferable as it pertains to discussing politics.

I read a lot of what you post because your opinions are interesting and challenge mine. Just opting out of discussing them beyond a post or two has happily freed up a lot of my time.

 

[qazplm]

Yeah, OK.



Yeah, I do. You concede nothing. When others are willing to concede portions of your points, you trample the rest of their thoughts until you feel like you're entirely right. The concept of meeting in the middle or accepting that the truth likely lies between your view and someone else's is utterly foreign to you. It is your way or no way. You are the very definition of insufferable as it pertains to discussing politics.

I read a lot of what you post because your opinions are interesting and challenge mine. Just opting out of discussing them beyond a post or two has happily freed up a lot of my time.

Yes, the tons of times others have "conceded points" to me would fill...a very very tiny page of a very very tiny notebook.
You no more "meet in the middle" than anyone else on here. And no, you don't read half of what I say, either that or you explicitly misrepresent half of what I say, and so far I've been assuming you simply ignore it...should I assume the alternative instead?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Whatever floats your boat!