Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look at the graph again, it says FULL exension which is EVERYONE and PARTIAL extension which is the 98%.. It doesnt even discuss NO ONE.. You are reaching here which admits that you didnt even know these reports existed. Whats the matter, your left wing news sources only gave you part of the facts, not all of it and now you have to pretend it says "no one" when it doesnt?
When they are discussing impact on employment, etc they are discussing the difference between that specific policy and if everything was eliminated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
So I'm supposed to just take your word for it over the CBO? Remind me again about your understanding of the tax code where poor people would get capital gains tax cuts..
No because my WORD is the CBO's word. The CBO doesn't state that those 700,000 jobs would not be there if it was for the bottom 98%. What the CBO states is that more jobs would be created if the cuts were made for everyone than if the cuts were made for those under $250,000, but the difference is nowhere near the 700,000 you state. In fact most of the jobs the jobs that would be created if its made permanent for everyone would still be created if its made permanent for those under $250,000.
In fact what the CBO does state is that if all the cuts were made permanent the impact on jobs in 2011 would range from 400,000-1,00,000. That is where you got the 700,000 number from. It also states if the cuts were made permanent for those under $250,000, the jobs in 2011 would range from 300,000 to 800,000. Coming out to 550,000 using the average. So the CBO points out most of the jobs created if its extended for everyone would still be created if its just for those under $250,000.
It also points out the negative impact on revenues would be larger if it was extended for everyone because those who already have the $$$ are much less willing to spend extra $$ they get than those without it.
In fact it was through this that they argued that the best way to boost the economy would be increase aid to the unemployed since they would spend the bulk of what they get and therefore boost the economy and employment through increased demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I'm far less concerned about a reduction in revenue to the federal government, who should be deducting their expenses due to 700,000 more individuals working. The fact that they wont reduce their expenses and will find other ways to spend it isnt the topic, nor do I care.
Tell me why you are more concerned about the federal government than you are the individuals that will have jobs as a result?
The difference between making the cuts permanent for everyone and making them permanent for those under $250,000 would not be anything close to the 700,000 as the CBO points out. And as the CBO points out the best way to boost economic growth and jobs is extending unemployment because it would have the greatest impact on demand which is what drives the economy and job growth.
When they are discussing impact on employment, etc they are discussing the difference between that specific policy and if everything was eliminated.
No they arent.. They are discussing AGAIN, the difference between a FULL extension and a PARTIAL extension.. They were not asked to calculate if everything else was eliminated..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
No because my WORD is the CBO's word. The CBO doesn't state that those 700,000 jobs would not be there if it was for the bottom 98%. What the CBO states is that more jobs would be created if the cuts were made for everyone than if the cuts were made for those under $250,000, but the difference is nowhere near the 700,000 you state. In fact most of the jobs the jobs that would be created if its made permanent for everyone would still be created if its made permanent for those under $250,000.
Does this mean you are abandoning the argument you just made above that the calculations were based upon "everything being eliminated" to now the calculations being that they wouldnt be for 98%? You cant even keep your postings straight from one paragraph to another..
Your word is not the word of the CBO, why dont you stop lying.. The poor dont pay capital gains, they dont have dividens etc.. The difference between a FULL extension and a PARTIAL extension is about $150,000,000,000 in excess spending in the GNP.. Why dont you start sighting the CBO, link me to their reports which validate your statements because I've posted charts which you cant even read properly. They do not say anything about "everything being eliminated" again..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
In fact what the CBO does state is that if all the cuts were made permanent the impact on jobs in 2011 would range from 400,000-1,00,000. That is where you got the 700,000 number from. It also states if the cuts were made permanent for those under $250,000, the jobs in 2011 would range from 300,000 to 800,000. Coming out to 550,000 using the average. So the CBO points out most of the jobs created if its extended for everyone would still be created if its just for those under $250,000.
Tell me you just didnt admit that the difference for 2011 would be 550K? The chart I posted was 568,000, you said I was wrong.. Now continue until 2012 and 2013 now why dont you? All you did was just point out how my figure was correct..
Also, last I checked, 550,000 was no where close to no increase, so tell me again, why dont you care about 550,000 more people being employed? And since you now verify the figure is accurate I posted for 2011, then why dont you care about the 880,000 for 2012? Again, the 700,000 figure is the AVERAGE over a 5 year period..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
It also points out the negative impact on revenues would be larger if it was extended for everyone because those who already have the $$$ are much less willing to spend extra $$ they get than those without it.
oh my god, I'm ready to stop having this discussion with you. Did you even look at the graph of the GNP I posted? The difference between the full tax cut and the partial tax cut equates to about .6% in GNP, which is about $150,000,000,000 in more spending. How do you get $150B in more spending = less spending? Admit it, your making this up as you go along..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
In fact it was through this that they argued that the best way to boost the economy would be increase aid to the unemployed since they would spend the bulk of what they get and therefore boost the economy and employment through increased demand.
Tell me you are just posting crap to get a response and you arent serious.. Even the economic advisor of Obamas admitting that extending unemployment perpetuates unemployment. You arent seriously telling me that extending unemployment decreases unemployment now are you? I feel sorry for you if you believe this crap to be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
The difference between making the cuts permanent for everyone and making them permanent for those under $250,000 would not be anything close to the 700,000 as the CBO points out. And as the CBO points out the best way to boost economic growth and jobs is extending unemployment because it would have the greatest impact on demand which is what drives the economy and job growth.
The CBO did not point any such thing out.. The only thing you pointed out was the fact that you ignored what I posted, pretended the CBO said things they didnt, and then you posted figures which were exactly the same as mine while claiming your figures were right and mine were wrong.
No they arent.. They are discussing AGAIN, the difference between a FULL extension and a PARTIAL extension.. They were not asked to calculate if everything else was eliminated..
WRONG. Directly from the CBO. For 2011 they predicted a gain of 400,000 to 1,000,000 jobs if the cuts were made permanent for everyone. If you split that down the middle its a gain of 700,000. The CBO also predicted a job gain if it was extended for those making under $250,000. That had a range of 300,000-800,000, splitting that down the middle 550,000. The CBO report states that with the full permanent extension to the tax cuts unemployment in 2011 would range from 0.2-0.5 points lower than if no extension was made, and with the permanent extension for those making under $250,000 unemployment in 2001 would range from 0.2-0.4 lower than if no extension was in place
Those numbers are policy in place vs without that policy
b. Estimated as the unemployment rate with the policy option in effect minus the unemployment
rate without the policy option
c. Estimated as the number of people who work for pay with the policy option in effect minus the
number without the policy option
Page 28 of the report, and this is directly from the CBO report, not what someone else claimed the CBO report said.
Does this mean you are abandoning the argument you just made above that the calculations were based upon "everything being eliminated" to now the calculations being that they wouldnt be for 98%? You cant even keep your postings straight from one paragraph to another..
No, the CBO pointed out the various job gains under different scenarios. They predicted a job gain of 400,000-1,000,000 averaging out to 700,000 if the cuts were made permanent for everyone, and a job gain of 300,000-800,000 if it was made permanent for those making under $250,000, averaging out to 550,000. Again point to page 28 of the CBO report linked above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Your word is not the word of the CBO, why dont you stop lying.. The poor dont pay capital gains, they dont have dividens etc.. The difference between a FULL extension and a PARTIAL extension is about $150,000,000,000 in excess spending in the GNP.. Why dont you start sighting the CBO, link me to their reports which validate your statements because I've posted charts which you cant even read properly. They do not say anything about "everything being eliminated" again..
: Estimated as gross national product adjusted for inflation (real GNP) with the policy option in
effect relative to real GNP without the policy option. Weak and strong labor responses correspond to the respective number of hours worked when the response to tax rate changes is
weak and when it is strong. For a description of the tax policy options, see the notes to
Table 2
That is pretty clear that they are discussing with or without the policy. Not exactly sure where you got that chart from because it doesn't appear anywhere in the actual report.
What the report actually says is by 2020 the GDP under a weak labor response would be 1.6% lower if everything was made permanent compared to without that policy 1.1% lower under a strong labor response. If it was made permanent for those under $250,000, the GDP would be 1.3% lower under a weak labor response by 2020 than if no extensions were made, and 0.9% lower under a strong labor response. Therefore what the CBO pointed out it the GDP would be 0.3% LOWER under a weak labor response and 0.2% LOWER under a strong labor response by 2020 if the cuts were made permanent for everyone compared to if it was made permanent for those under $250,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Tell me you just didnt admit that the difference for 2011 would be 550K? The chart I posted was 568,000, you said I was wrong.. Now continue until 2012 and 2013 now why dont you? All you did was just point out how my figure was correct..
Also, last I checked, 550,000 was no where close to no increase, so tell me again, why dont you care about 550,000 more people being employed? And since you now verify the figure is accurate I posted for 2011, then why dont you care about the 880,000 for 2012? Again, the 700,000 figure is the AVERAGE over a 5 year period..
550,000 is the middle range for more people to be employed in 2011 if the cuts were made permanent for those under $250,000 than if nothing was extended. 700,000 is that mid range in 2011 if the cuts were made permanent or everyone than if nothing was extended. So the mid range would have about 150,000 more people employed if everything was made permanent compared to if it was made permanent for those under $250,000, with the overall difference in the unemployment rate ranging from 0.0%-0.1%. However the GDP would see more of a drop off if it was made permanent for everyone than it would if it was made permanent for those under $250,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
oh my god, I'm ready to stop having this discussion with you. Did you even look at the graph of the GNP I posted? The difference between the full tax cut and the partial tax cut equates to about .6% in GNP, which is about $150,000,000,000 in more spending. How do you get $150B in more spending = less spending? Admit it, your making this up as you go along..
Again that graph appears nowhere in the report. The chart for 2020 GDP ranges from -1.1% to -1.6% for permanent extension for everyone to -0.9% to -1.3% for permanent extension for those under $250,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Tell me you are just posting crap to get a response and you arent serious.. Even the economic advisor of Obamas admitting that extending unemployment perpetuates unemployment. You arent seriously telling me that extending unemployment decreases unemployment now are you? I feel sorry for you if you believe this crap to be true.
That is what the CBO Says
The largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost would arise from a
temporary increase in aid to the unemployed. Such an increase would slightly raise
unemployment among the affected individuals. However, the households receiving
the additional benefits would tend to spend a very large share of them (rather than
saving them) and to do that spending quickly; the increase in spending would raise
demand and thereby increase output and employment in the economy overall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The CBO did not point any such thing out.. The only thing you pointed out was the fact that you ignored what I posted, pretended the CBO said things they didnt, and then you posted figures which were exactly the same as mine while claiming your figures were right and mine were wrong.
Yes as a matter fact its EXACTLY what the CBO pointed out by saying those who are get unemployment are much more apt to spend the extra $$$ they get and spend it quickly and boost demand and as a result the economy and employment.
WRONG. Directly from the CBO. For 2011 they predicted a gain of 400,000 to 1,000,000 jobs if the cuts were made permanent for everyone. If you split that down the middle its a gain of 700,000. The CBO also predicted a job gain if it was extended for those making under $250,000. That had a range of 300,000-800,000, splitting that down the middle 550,000. The CBO report states that with the full permanent extension to the tax cuts unemployment in 2011 would range from 0.2-0.5 points lower than if no extension was made, and with the permanent extension for those making under $250,000 unemployment in 2001 would range from 0.2-0.4 lower than if no extension was in place
Those numbers are policy in place vs without that policy
b. Estimated as the unemployment rate with the policy option in effect minus the unemployment rate without the policy option c. Estimated as the number of people who work for pay with the policy option in effect minus the number without the policy option
Page 28 of the report, and this is directly from the CBO report, not what someone else claimed the CBO report said.
No, the CBO pointed out the various job gains under different scenarios. They predicted a job gain of 400,000-1,000,000 averaging out to 700,000 if the cuts were made permanent for everyone, and a job gain of 300,000-800,000 if it was made permanent for those making under $250,000, averaging out to 550,000. Again point to page 28 of the CBO report linked above.
: Estimated as gross national product adjusted for inflation (real GNP) with the policy option in effect relative to real GNP without the policy option. Weak and strong labor responses correspond to the respective number of hours worked when the response to tax rate changes is weak and when it is strong. For a description of the tax policy options, see the notes to Table 2
That is pretty clear that they are discussing with or without the policy. Not exactly sure where you got that chart from because it doesn't appear anywhere in the actual report.
What the report actually says is by 2020 the GDP under a weak labor response would be 1.6% lower if everything was made permanent compared to without that policy 1.1% lower under a strong labor response. If it was made permanent for those under $250,000, the GDP would be 1.3% lower under a weak labor response by 2020 than if no extensions were made, and 0.9% lower under a strong labor response. Therefore what the CBO pointed out it the GDP would be 0.3% LOWER under a weak labor response and 0.2% LOWER under a strong labor response by 2020 if the cuts were made permanent for everyone compared to if it was made permanent for those under $250,000
550,000 is the middle range for more people to be employed in 2011 if the cuts were made permanent for those under $250,000 than if nothing was extended. 700,000 is that mid range in 2011 if the cuts were made permanent or everyone than if nothing was extended. So the mid range would have about 150,000 more people employed if everything was made permanent compared to if it was made permanent for those under $250,000, with the overall difference in the unemployment rate ranging from 0.0%-0.1%. However the GDP would see more of a drop off if it was made permanent for everyone than it would if it was made permanent for those under $250,000.
Again that graph appears nowhere in the report. The chart for 2020 GDP ranges from -1.1% to -1.6% for permanent extension for everyone to -0.9% to -1.3% for permanent extension for those under $250,000
That is what the CBO Says
The largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost would arise from a temporary increase in aid to the unemployed. Such an increase would slightly raise unemployment among the affected individuals. However, the households receiving the additional benefits would tend to spend a very large share of them (rather than saving them) and to do that spending quickly; the increase in spending would raise demand and thereby increase output and employment in the economy overall.
Yes as a matter fact its EXACTLY what the CBO pointed out by saying those who are get unemployment are much more apt to spend the extra $$$ they get and spend it quickly and boost demand and as a result the economy and employment.
The numbers you quoted are no where in the report you linked to. Did you think I wasnt going to look?
The numbers you quoted are no where in the report you linked to. Did you think I wasnt going to look?
The 550,000 is the mid range of the 300,000-800,000 that is in the report. The 700,000 is the mid range of the 400,000-1,00,000 that is in the report. All other numbers I quoted are in that report.
Name one number I mentioned that you can't find in the report, I will tell you what page to look on if you need....
I think the very top earners should pay more than they pay now. Many of them only pay 15% because they make all their money on capital gains and dividends. And they pay no SS tax after about $105K. That needs to be stopped. If the top marginal rate was 45% for people that make over a million or $2 million a year NO MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE of their income is, that would be about right. As for the lower income people like me, I think the mortgage deduction should be given the heave as should refundable credits and deductions for kids. And the rate should be 1% up to $30,000. Everybody should pay but the rich should pay more.
The reason prosperous nations keep capital gains taxes low is so people with money to invest build their economies. It isn't fair, but everyone benefits from the robust economies.
The 550,000 is the mid range of the 300,000-800,000 that is in the report. The 700,000 is the mid range of the 400,000-1,00,000 that is in the report. All other numbers I quoted are in that report.
Name one number I mentioned that you can't find in the report, I will tell you what page to look on if you need....
None of these numbers are in the report.. A search for all of them yields
"Reader has finished searching the document, No matches were found"
Yet another shining example of the Democratic "leadership" of Reid and Pelosi being SO far to the left that they can't even unite their own party behind it.
I also like how they portray anyone who makes more than 1/4 of a million a year as "excessively rich" and anyone who sides with them as "defending millionaires". For one, when did being successful become such a shameful thing? For another, 1/4 is a lot less than 4/4. Not only that, but in a lot of cities (including the one I live in) a quarter of a million a year only earns you a solidly upper middle class lifestyle, not some vainglorious life of super-luxury.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The chart I posted was 568,000, you said I was wrong.. Now continue until 2012 and 2013 now why dont you? All you did was just point out how my figure was correct.. 
